Delhi High Court Considers Ajeet Bharti’s Bail Request
In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti. This plea is linked to a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), following allegations of offensive comments directed at Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan.
Judicial Observations
Presiding over the matter, Justice Saurabh Banerjee remarked on the need for caution in public commentary, especially concerning sensitive subjects like caste. He stated, “All these facets, caste, programme etc… You can’t come up to the level of expressing your opinion by naming. There are statutes which give special privileges which are defined then you need to be circumspect of what you are doing…”
The Court also questioned the Delhi Police’s delay in issuing a notice to Bharti, with the police counsel citing a recent acquisition of Bharti’s address as the cause. Justice Banerjee highlighted the offensive nature of Bharti’s words and admonished the counsel for attempting to submit a transcript of the video in court.
Case Background
The FIR against Bharti, lodged on August 23 at Delhi’s North Avenue Police Station, invokes the SC/ST Act alongside Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint was initiated by Balakram Bauddh of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), citing objectionable content in a video uploaded by Bharti titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.”
Bharti’s comments allegedly included caste-based derogatory language and disparaging remarks against Chandrashekhar Azad and BR Ambedkar, accompanied by sexual invectives against women.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, representing Bharti, argued that the YouTuber’s statements were not intended to malign any caste and were provoked by derogatory remarks directed at his family. Dehadrai contended that Bharti’s comments were made in response to personal insults and did not specifically target Chandrashekhar Azad’s caste identity.
On the other hand, the prosecution highlighted the derogatory nature of Bharti’s statements, emphasizing that they constituted an offense under the SC/ST Act. The complainant’s counsel argued that Bharti’s actions were deliberate and insulting toward a particular caste, asserting that these factors preclude the granting of anticipatory bail.
Judicial Proceedings
During the hearing, the submission of video transcripts was contested due to their offensive content. The Court cautioned against presenting such material, which led to a moment of tension with Advocate Dehadrai seeking to withdraw from the case. However, the Court clarified that the intention was not to issue contempt but to maintain decorum.
More Read
The High Court concluded by stating its need to evaluate the case on a prima facie basis and reserved its order on Bharti’s bail application.
