YouTuber Ajeet Bharti on Wednesday told the Delhi High Court that he is an "anti-caste discrimination activist" and that there was never any intention on his part to denigrate any caste.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing his plea for anticipatory bail in a case registered under the SC-ST Act over alleged objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
Bharti’s counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, submitted before the Court that the alleged remarks forming the basis of the FIR had to be considered in their complete context, including the portions of the video preceding and following the impugned statements.
The counsel said Bharti’s primary source of income was through short videos and podcasts uploaded on YouTube, with some content also being published as reels.
The Court asked where the video was and whether the counsel had the complete recording.
The State counsel informed the Court that the Investigating Officer had a pen drive containing the entire video. Justice Banerjee indicated that he would hear the recording after lunch in his chamber, observing that it could not be properly heard in open court.
"I'll come back after lunch. I'll keep this because I can't hear this, also the words are there, so I can't hear this in court. I'll hear it in my chamber " the Court said.
Dehadrai thereafter sought to explain the circumstances in which Bharti had allegedly made the remarks. "Because I am an anti-caste discrimination activist. So I have spoken against caste discrimination. Somebody posts something about my sister, my married sister, says something offensive. In provocation and reaction, I say something " he submitted.
He added that there was no intention to denigrate any caste or humanity.
Dehadrai further urged the Court to watch the portions of the video before and after the allegedly objectionable remarks. " The impugned portion is a few lines, please hear also the part that comes prior, and after " he submitted.
During the hearing, Justice Banerjee also made observations concerning the manner in which persons who publicly disseminate opinions through online platforms should conduct themselves.
Justice Banerjee observed: "But once you designated yourself as a Youtube Commentator, you should be aware of what you are, and how you are, and when you are, and what you are doing."
The Court observed that there was no prescribed professional qualification for being a YouTuber and that the nature of the role was essentially something created by the person themselves.
" There is no written prescribed norm. You are what you have created yourself. You haven't had a professional degree or degree or something. So you might as well know what you're doing " the Judge said.
The Court further observed that while expressing opinions through podcasts or other programmes, a person could not necessarily "come up to a level of expressing your opinion by naming", indicating that this could present an issue in the context of the present case.
" You can't, in under these podcasts or programs or dissemination, you can't come up to a level of expressing your opinion by naming. That is the only point which might come in a problem with you " Justice Banerjee said.
The Judge, however, agreed with the counsel that the complete context of a statement was relevant. "Yes, it has to be. Nothing can be or should be taken out of context, correct" the Court observed.
Justice Banerjee also stressed that where statutory provisions confer special protections, a person making public statements must exercise caution.
"But where there are some issues, and where there is a statute which give special privileges which are defined, then you need to be circumspect of what you are doing" the Court said.
The State also alleged that Bharti had multiple FIRs and "willfully does like these acts".
The State counsel thereafter submitted that the allegedly offensive portion was "exclusively narrated in the FIR".
The Court responded that it was aware of the contents of the FIR.
The hearing came in Bharti’s plea challenging the rejection (https://lawbeat.in/news-updates/why-was-youtuber-ajeet-bharti-denied-anticipatory-bail-in-the-scst-act-case-1629947) of his anticipatory bail application by the Patiala House Courts on September 7.
The FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station on August 23 following a complaint concerning remarks allegedly made by Bharti during a YouTube programme uploaded on August 22. The case invokes provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The trial court had held that the material on record prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and consequently found that the statutory bar under Section 18 precluded the grant of anticipatory bail. It had particularly considered allegations concerning references to caste and the marriageability of Chandrashekhar Azad.
Before the trial court, Bharti’s defence had also maintained that the remarks were made in response to what was described as offensive comments concerning his family member and that he did not intend to make casteist remarks.
The Delhi High Court had earlier deferred consideration of Bharti’s plea after noticing that the complete FIR was not available in the paper book and directed that the complete copy be supplied to his counsel.
On Wednesday, the Court decided to examine the complete video before proceeding further with the matter. The hearing will continue after lunch.
Case title - AJEET BHARTI v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Hearing Date: September 16, 2026


Tags: