YouTuber Ajeet Bharti has petitioned the Delhi High Court for anticipatory bail following charges under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accusations stem from comments he made about Chandrashekhar Azad, a prominent figure. Bharti’s appeal follows a recent decision by a trial court, dated September 7, which refused to grant him bail. The High Court is expected to schedule a hearing next week.
Background of the Case
On August 23, an FIR was lodged against Bharti at the North Avenue Police Station in Delhi. The charges include violations under 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 complaint was initiated by Balakram Bauddh, the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), following a contentious video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti” uploaded by Bharti.
Allegations and Defense
The complaint accuses Bharti of using caste-based derogatory language, making objectionable statements concerning Chandrashekhar Azad (‘Ravan’) and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, employing sexually inappropriate language towards women, and issuing threats. Bharti, however, has publicly defended his actions, asserting that his comments were in retaliation to an insulting remark about his family, specifically his mother and sister, made on his video platform.
Judicial Observations
In the order issued on September 7, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler highlighted that Bharti’s language invoked caste-based stereotypes and notions of purity. The judge noted that Bharti’s statement suggesting that Chandrashekhar Azad should prove himself worthy of marrying an upper-caste girl implied caste-based superiority, which is derogatory and humiliating.
“The assertion that the said MP should make himself worthy of marrying an upper-caste girl, is a specific reference to caste and humiliating as to why a person fit to be married to anyone in SC/ST community has to be something extra/something more/worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste,” observed the Court.
