A Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber and reservation reform activist Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act over his remarks about Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts passed the order on September 7. The court held that Bharti’s remarks prima facie invoked caste hierarchy, caste-based notions of purity and the alleged superiority of upper castes in matters of marriage and lineage.
Court Finds Prima Facie SC ST Act Offence
The case relates to comments Bharti allegedly made during a YouTube livestream titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More”.
According to the FIR, Bharti was responding to a viewer who suggested that he marry his sister to Chandrashekhar Azad as a way of ending caste-based reservations.
The complaint alleged that Bharti responded with caste-based and abusive remarks about Azad and BR Ambedkar. It further alleged that he referred to caste names including “Dom” and “Chamar” and said that merely being a Scheduled Caste MP was not enough, adding that Azad would first have to become “worthy” of marrying a “Savarna” woman.
The court observed that the reference to Azad becoming worthy of marrying an upper caste woman was specifically linked to his caste identity and could be humiliating.
“The assertion that the said MP should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl, is a specific reference to caste,” the court observed, according to the order.
The judge said the remarks raised the question of why a person considered suitable to marry within an SC or ST community would have to be “something extra” or “something more” to be considered worthy of marrying an upper caste woman.
The court consequently found that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC ST Act were prima facie made out.
Why Anticipatory Bail Was Denied
Section 18 of the SC ST Act places restrictions on anticipatory bail when the relevant provisions of the Act are prima facie attracted.
Bharti’s lawyer, Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were not applicable. The defence argued that the complainant was not present during the alleged incident and that Bharti’s comments were rhetorical and hypothetical.
The defence also argued that the remarks were not directed at any specific woman and that the complete context of the video should be considered.
The court, however, held that caste references formed the central basis of Bharti’s response rather than being an isolated reference.
Court Says Custodial Interrogation Not Required
The judge also made an important observation about the need for Bharti’s custody.
The court said that if the offences under the SC ST Act were not involved, it might have considered granting Bharti relief. It observed that the incident appeared to be a spontaneous response to a comment and that custodial interrogation was not required.
However, since the court found that the SC ST Act provisions were prima facie attracted, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail became decisive.
The court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the bail application and did not amount to a finding that Bharti was guilty.
The judge said the order should not be treated as a final finding on Bharti’s guilt or innocence, the truth of the allegations or the complete context of the video.
FIR Against Ajeet Bharti
The FIR was registered at Delhi’s North Avenue police station on August 23 following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi state president of the Azad Samaj Party Kanshi Ram.
Bharti has been booked under the 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.
