Back
Delhi Court Rejects YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's Plea in SC/ST Act Case
In a significant development for cases involving the stringent , a Delhi court on Monday dismissed the plea of YouTuber and reservation reform activist Ajeet Bharti. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the declined to grant to Bharti, who faces an FIR registered under the SC/ST Act, along with provisions of the and the , over alleged casteist remarks made during a YouTube broadcast.
The court's decision came after detailed arguments from both sides, with Bharti's counsel contending that the on under should not apply as the allegations did not disclose a offence. The , however, argued that the plea was not maintainable and that Bharti need not fear arrest merely because a case had been registered. A detailed order explaining the reasons for dismissal is expected to be released later in the day.
The Allegations: Casteist Remarks or Provoked Response?
The FIR was registered on
at Delhi's North Avenue Police Station following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), led by Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad. The complaint arose from a video titled
"SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti"
published on Bharti's social media handle.
According to the complaint, Bharti allegedly used caste-based and abusive language, made objectionable remarks concerning Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, used sexually derogatory language against women, and issued threats. The complainant contended that the comments went beyond a personal exchange and were abusive towards the wider Dalit community.
Bharti, however, has maintained that his remarks were not casteist and were made in response to what he described as a "grave provocation." During his YouTube interaction, a user had commented,
"Ajeet Bharti, get your sister married to MP Chandrashekhar and reservation will end."
Bharti responded by making derogatory remarks about the MP, using the caste term "chamar" and making sexually explicit comments directed at the commenter. He also invoked Dr. Ambedkar's marriage, saying the Dalit-rights champion had earned his degrees without reservation.
Legal Arguments: Under Section 18
Bharti's counsel, Advocate , mounted a vigorous defense, arguing that the bar on under could only apply where the allegations in the FIR or complaint disclose a offence under the Act. Relying on the 's judgment in , Dehadrai submitted that the court must examine whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offence were made out before applying the .
The counsel particularly addressed the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, stressing the requirements of , the , and the connection between the alleged conduct and the victim's caste. He argued that every offensive or objectionable statement concerning a person belonging to an SC/ST community would not automatically constitute an offence under the Act.
Dehadrai also sought to explain the context of Bharti's remarks, submitting that they were directed at a particular individual who had made a degrading comment about his sister, and were not intended to humiliate or target an entire caste or community. He pointed out that Bharti's statements, when read in their entirety, showed that he was opposed to caste discrimination and had advocated a scientific caste census and quota-within-quota to ensure reservation benefits reached under-represented communities.
The defence also relied on the doctrine of
, arguing that the alleged remarks could not be considered in isolation from the circumstances in which they were made. Dehadrai told the court,
"Nowhere have I used a caste slur or made a caste-based abuse against any community, My Lord. I was provoked. I said something in the context of the person whose name was taken. I have no other intention."
Prosecution's Stand and Court's Decision
The opposed the plea, submitting that Bharti need not apprehend arrest merely because an FIR had been registered against him. The prosecution argued that a case had been established, and the complainant's counsel contended that the YouTuber's commentary was abusive not merely towards the complainant but towards the wider community.
After hearing arguments at length, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler dismissed the plea. The court did not grant any interim protection, leaving Bharti without cover from arrest. However, the allegations remain allegations at this stage, and the rejection of does not amount to a finding of guilt.
Context of the Controversy: Reservation Reform Activism
The case comes against the backdrop of Bharti's active involvement in the reservation reform movement. He participated in a "Reservation Hatao Andolan" at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, where he called for changes to the reservation system, including a government white paper, quota within quota, implementation of the creamy-layer principle, and minimum marks for admissions. More than 50 protesters were detained after the demonstration escalated.
Bharti is among the influencers who amplified online campaigns to reform caste-based reservations and the now-stayed UGC equity regulations, which he said "unfairly targeted the upper-castes." His YouTube broadcast on , which led to the FIR, was part of this ongoing discourse.
Implications for SC/ST Act Cases
The dismissal of Bharti's plea underscores the strict approach courts often take in cases under the SC/ST Act, where Section 18 creates a bar on if a case is made out. The judgment is likely to be closely examined by legal practitioners, particularly the detailed order when released, for guidance on how courts assess whether the applies.
The defense's reliance on Prathvi Raj Chauhan highlights a key argument in such cases: that the court must first satisfy itself that the allegations disclose the of an offence under the Act before denying bail. The argument that context and provocation are relevant factors may also influence future litigation, especially where the alleged remarks are made in the heat of an online exchange.
For the legal community, the case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech in the digital age and the application of the SC/ST Act to social media commentary. The decision also serves as a reminder that in SC/ST Act cases remains a high hurdle, even when the defense argues that the remarks were not intended to target a community.
Conclusion
As the legal fraternity awaits the detailed order, the case against Ajeet Bharti continues. The rejection of means that Bharti may face arrest if the investigating officer deems it necessary. However, the defense has signaled its intention to continue fighting the case on merits, arguing that the allegations do not meet the threshold for an SC/ST Act offence. The outcome of this case will be watched closely as a potential precedent for how courts balance the protective intent of the SC/ST Act with the rights of individuals to respond to provocation in public discourse.
