Introduction
In a recent legal development, a Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, citing his alleged caste-based comments in a video. Bharti’s words, according to the court, invoked notions of caste hierarchy and purity, which prima facie attract offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).
Background of the Case
The issue arose from a YouTube video in which Bharti commented on Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste community. The video, titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti,” drew criticism for its language and content, leading to legal action.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, presiding over the Patiala House Courts, observed that Bharti’s comments specifically referenced caste, suggesting that Azad should “make himself worthy” of marrying an upper-caste girl. The court found this assertion humiliating and indicative of caste-based discrimination.
The Judge noted that Bharti’s language satisfied the elements of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with publicly insulting or humiliating a member of the SC/ST community. Consequently, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act, which prohibits granting anticipatory bail in such cases, was applicable.
Legal Arguments and Defense
Bharti’s defense, led by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, contended that the comments were rhetorical and hypothetical, arguing that they did not specifically insult any individual present. The defense posited that the remarks needed to be considered within their complete context, which was not possible at the pre-arrest stage.
More Read
Despite these arguments, the court concluded that Bharti’s comments invoked caste in a manner that was not incidental but rather central to his response. As a result, the anticipatory bail plea was rejected.
Legal Representation
Ajeet Bharti was represented by a team of advocates including Jai Anant Dehadrai, Pratyush Prasanna, and others, while the complainant, Balakram Bauddh of the Azad Samaj Party, was represented by a team including Mohan Shyam Arya and Abhishek Suman. Mukul Kumar served as the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
Conclusion
This case highlights the ongoing legal and societal challenges surrounding caste-based discussions in India. The court’s decision underscores the serious legal implications of language that perpetuates caste discrimination, reaffirming the protection offered under the SC/ST Act.
