Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case over allegedly objectionable YouTube remarks was adjourned by a Delhi court to September 7

A Delhi court on Monday adjourned YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case registered against him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast.

The anticipatory bail application was listed before Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler.

The matter was passed over during the proceedings before being adjourned to September 7.

Bharti, who is facing allegations arising from remarks made during a YouTube broadcast, has approached the court seeking protection from arrest in connection with the case.

The proceedings concern allegations under the SC/ST Act, with the complainant alleging that Bharti’s remarks were objectionable and attracted offences under the special legislation.

The court will now hear Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea on September 7.

The matter remains pending before the Delhi court.

Notably, on August 25, the Bharti had approached the Delhi Court seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR registered against him under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over alleged objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast.
Bharti’s counsel, Advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai and Pratyush Prasanna
had argued that the allegations against him do not, on their face, constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. The defence had also submitted that the police had not served Bharti with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 41-A(1) of CrPC).

After brief hearing in the case, the Court had directed that, if the Investigating Officer issues such a notice, a copy must also be placed before it. The Court said this would enable the Court to examine the date of issuance of the notice and the prima facie satisfaction regarding the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Investigating Officer has been summoned and notice has been issued to the police on the anticipatory bail plea.

FIR over YouTube broadcast

The FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station, Delhi, following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), the party headed by Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.

The complaint relates to remarks allegedly made by Bharti during an August 22 YouTube programme titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.”

The complainant has alleged that Bharti made caste-based and abusive remarks concerning Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar, besides making sexually objectionable comments concerning women and issuing threats.

According to the complaint, the videos contain a continuous sequence of statements concerning caste, reservation, marriage, and members of Scheduled Caste communities. It alleges that the accused repeatedly invoked caste identity in a derogatory and humiliating context.

Apart from the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the FIR invokes Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 153-A and 506 of IPC).

Bharti's defence

Bharti has publicly denied making casteist remarks. He has maintained that the statements were made in response to what he described as an offensive comment concerning his mother and sister.

In his plea, he has taken the position before the Court that the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST Act.

It is his further case that no caste-based remark was made against Chandrashekhar, nor was he insulted using any casteist slur in this regard. Therefore, no case is made out.

Ajeet Bharti has claimed that the case was filed after pressure was exerted on police by Azad Samaj Party members. "I know how much pressure the Azad Samaj Party members exerted at Delhi Police’s North Avenue Police Station to get this FIR registered at midnight. It will not stand for two minutes in court. Not a single section will hold" Bharti wrote on X.

He added: "Today, whether a person understands their fundamental rights or not, they certainly knows what the SC/ST Act is. Therefore, when I speak, I am aware of my limits, however unfair they may be, regarding what I can and cannot say”.

Case Title: State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti  

Bench: ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler

Hearing Date: August 31, 2026

Tags: