Delhi Court reserves order on Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in SC/ST Act case

A Delhi Court has reserved its order on YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast.

The plea was heard at length by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of Patiala House Court, following which the Court reserved its order.

Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Bharti, argued that the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act could operate only if the allegations in the complaint or FIR disclose a prima facie offence under the Act.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, Dehadrai submitted that courts are required to examine the averments in the complaint or FIR to determine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST Act are made out before applying the statutory bar.

He argued that merely because a statement is offensive or objectionable, it would not automatically constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.

'Insult must be on ground of caste'. argues Bharti's counsel

Dehadrai focused on the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. He submitted that every insult or intimidation of a person belonging to an SC/ST community does not constitute an offence under the Act. According to him, the alleged insult or intimidation must be on the ground that the victim belongs to an SC/ST community, along with the other statutory requirements.

On Section 3(1)(r), Dehadrai emphasised the requirement of an intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of an SC/ST community. He argued that the Court must examine not only the words allegedly used but also the intention behind them, the target of the remarks and the context in which they were made.

Counsel further submitted that under Section 3(1)(s), the alleged abuse by caste name must also occur in a place within public view.

Counsel cites 'Provocation' in social media exchange

Dehadrai then placed before the Court the transcript of the statements made by Bharti and sought to explain the context in which the alleged remarks were made.

He submitted that Bharti’s comments were made during a social-media exchange after a person identified as Singh allegedly made a comment referring to Bharti’s sister and suggesting that she should marry Chandrashekhar Azad, in the context of a debate concerning reservation.

According to Dehadrai, this constituted “grave and sudden provocation”, and Bharti’s subsequent response could not be viewed in isolation from the preceding exchange.

Counsel argued that Bharti’s criticism was directed at a specific individual, rather than an entire caste or community.

He also submitted that Bharti’s objection to Chandrashekhar Azad was based on what he described as the latter’s public statements and conduct, and not his caste. “I am allowed to [not like him]. The law in India allows me not to like him,” Dehadrai submitted, while explaining Bharti’s position before the Court. He further argued that Bharti had expressly stated that the individual’s caste was irrelevant to his criticism.

'No Caste slur or caste-based abuse', says Counsel

Dehadrai maintained that Bharti’s statements, when read in their entirety, demonstrated that he was not advocating discrimination against any caste or community. He submitted that Bharti had spoken in favour of a scientific caste census and quota-within-quota, arguing that reservation benefits should reach genuinely under-represented communities.

According to counsel, Bharti had also spoken against discrimination within SC/ST communities and emphasised fraternity among different sections. “Nowhere have I used a caste slur or made a caste-based abuse against any community, My Lord,” Dehadrai argued.

He further submitted that Bharti’s references to Dr BR Ambedkar were made with respect and were intended to emphasise that members of different communities should not demean one another.

Counsel argued that individual words or statements could not be examined in isolation and that the Court must consider the entire context, alleged provocation, intention, caste nexus and element of humiliation while determining whether a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act was made out.

The Court, after hearing the arguments at length, reserved its order on Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea.

The order is awaited.

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).

Case Title: State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti

Bench: ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler

Hearing Date: September 7, 2026

Tags: