Back
Ajeet Bharti Moves After Trial Court Cites in SC/ST Act
YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti has approached the seeking in a criminal case registered under the , after a trial court denied him on . The trial court held that the language attributed to Bharti invoked and notions of , thereby attracting the stringent bar on under Section 18 of the Act. The matter is expected to be listed before the High Court next week, and its decision will clarify the interplay between online speech and the special procedural regime of the SC/ST Act.
Background: The FIR and Alleged Remarks
The case originates from a video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti,” uploaded on Bharti’s verified YouTube channel and X (formerly Twitter) account on . The FIR, lodged at the on on a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the (Kanshi Ram), alleges that Bharti made casteist, derogatory, and humiliating statements against Chandrashekhar Azad, a sitting Member of Parliament and leader of the , as well as against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The complaint also references sexually degrading language and threats, leading to the invocation of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, along with , and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the .
The specific remarks that drew the trial court’s ire arose in response to a social media comment by a user named “@Singhden,” who suggested that Bharti arrange his sister’s marriage to the MP to end reservation. In his video, Bharti retorted by invoking caste names explicitly. According to the transcript annexed by Bharti himself, he stated that if the commentator had arranged his own sister’s marriage to a person of the “Dom” caste, or his mother’s marriage to a person of the “Chamar” caste, the comparison might hold. He further said that marriage required regard to several things, and it was “not that [a person] is a Chamar and an MP, [and] therefore a marriage should be arranged.” Bharti added that the MP would first have to “make himself worthy” to seek the hand of a woman from a “Savarna” (upper-caste) family. The trial court order also noted that these remarks were followed by “further remarks, of an explicitly sexual character, concerning the commentator’s sister and mother,” which the court deemed unnecessary to reproduce.
The Trial Court’s Reasoning: Offence Under Section 3(1)(r)
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of , while rejecting Bharti’s plea, conducted a to determine whether the under was triggered. The court clarified that its task was not to appreciate evidence or determine guilt, but to ascertain whether the ingredients of an offence under the Act were disclosed.
The court distinguished Bharti’s case from precedents where generic abuse or stray caste references were held insufficient. Relying on the ’s decision in , the trial court observed that the impugned language “invokes and marriageability directly, touching the very notion identified in Shajan Skaria as the paradigm of ‘’ under Section 3(1)(r): caste-based notions of purity and the assumed superiority of ‘upper’ over ‘lower’ castes in matters of alliance and lineage.” The court noted that Bharti’s assertion that the MP should make himself worthy of marrying an upper-caste girl was “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 or something more or worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste.”
The court also addressed Bharti’s argument that the “” requirement under Section 3(1)(r) was not satisfied because the complainant was not personally present. It held that given the video had garnered over 23,000 views on a publicly accessible platform, the ingredient could not be treated as plainly absent at this stage.
The Legal Hurdle: Section 18 Bar and the High Court’s Task
excludes the application of (now ), which provides for , in relation to offences under the Act. However, the in and Shajan Skaria has clarified that the bar is not absolute: if the complaint, taken at face value, does not disclose the ingredients of an offence under the Act, a court retains the power to grant . The will therefore examine whether the trial court correctly concluded that a case under Section 3(1)(r) exists.
Bharti’s counsel, , argued that no offence under Section 3(1)(r) was made out because the complainant was not insulted “within ,” and that the impugned passage was a rhetorical hypothetical addressed to a commentator, not a statement concerning any identified real woman. He further submitted that the bar under Section 18 does not extend to the separately alleged IT Act and BNS offences merely because they are clubbed in the same FIR. The trial court, however, declined to sever the offences at this stage, noting that they arose from the same recording and course of conduct.
What the High Court Will Examine
The High Court’s consideration will turn on several critical issues. First, whether the remarks, viewed in their full context, constitute an insult “on the ground of” caste rather than a heated response to a provocative comment. Second, whether the “” requirement can be satisfied by an online broadcast, a question that remains unsettled in Indian jurisprudence. Third, whether the applies to the entire FIR or only to the SC/ST Act offences, and whether the High Court can grant for the non-SC/ST offences independently.
The trial court’s order, while detailed, is a finding at the . It does not preclude Bharti from arguing that the allegations are overblown or that the remarks were not intended to humiliate. The High Court may also consider the principle that should not be denied merely because a penal statute carries a bar, if the material does not support the charge. In , the held that where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, the bar under Section 18 does not apply.
Impact on Legal Practice and Online Speech
This case is significant for legal practitioners dealing with speech-related offences, particularly those involving caste identity and social media. The trial court’s reasoning—that repeated invocation of caste names in the context of marriageability directly touches the “” paradigm—sets a precedent that could influence future bail applications under the SC/ST Act. Lawyers advising clients on online content will need to be acutely aware that responses to provocation, if they deploy caste-based language, may attract the stringent procedural regime of the Act.
The decision also underscores the tension between free speech and the protective aims of the SC/ST Act. While the Act is designed to prevent caste-based atrocities, its application to online remarks raises questions about the scope of “” and the need for context. The High Court’s ruling will provide guidance on how to balance these competing interests.
Conclusion
As Ajeet Bharti’s plea awaits hearing before the , the legal community will watch closely. The outcome will not only determine Bharti’s immediate liberty but also clarify the boundaries of Section 18 in the digital age. If the High Court upholds the trial court’s finding, it will reinforce the message that caste-based humiliation, even in online banter, attracts the full force of the SC/ST Act. If it grants relief, it may signal a more contextual approach to evaluating such remarks. Either way, the case highlights the evolving jurisprudence at the intersection of caste, speech, and criminal procedure.
