Back
Reserves Order on Ajeet Bharti's , Questions Police Delay
The on Wednesday reserved its order on the plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who faces allegations of making casteist and derogatory remarks against Scheduled Caste members, including Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, hearing the matter, sharply questioned the on why no notice had been issued to Bharti despite the FIR being registered in August, and whether was even required at this stage. The Court declined to grant , issued notice to the prosecution, and reserved its order, leaving Bharti without a shield against arrest until the verdict is delivered.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an episode of Bharti's self-titled YouTube programme uploaded on , which allegedly contained casteist and humiliating remarks directed at Chandra Shekhar Azad, a sitting Member of Parliament from Nagina, and Dr BR Ambedkar. The FIR was registered under the (SC/ST Act), along with Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) (aggravated criminal intimidation) of the and provisions of the .
Bharti's
application was earlier rejected by the trial court, which observed that his remarks concerning caste and marriageability of a sitting MP
disclosed an offence under
. The trial court noted that the statement that the MP
"should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl"
was a specific reference to caste and was inherently humiliating. Aggrieved, Bharti moved the
.
Court Questions Police on Procedural Lapses
During the hearing, Justice Banerjee sought to know from the why no notice had been served on Bharti despite the FIR being registered on . The Court asked pointedly: “Why no notice? You don't require interrogation?” The counsel for the responded that the Investigating Officer had only obtained Bharti's address two days prior and had been unable to access him earlier. The Court appeared unconvinced, pressing the police on the necessity of at this stage.
The judge also framed a specific question for the prosecution to answer: whether the two identified portions of Bharti's remarks, by themselves, are sufficient to attract the SC/ST Act. This framing indicates that the Court is narrowly focusing on the case, rather than considering the broader context of social media exchanges that Bharti's counsel argued had provoked the remarks.
Arguments on the Under Section 18
A central legal issue before the Court was the applicability of , which imposes a bar on where a offence under the Act is made out. The prosecution, supported by the complainant's counsel, contended that the remarks were clearly insulting towards a particular caste, were made publicly on a social media platform, and that the accused does not belong to the same community. They argued that the therefore applied and the bail plea was not maintainable.
Bharti's counsel, Advocate , countered that Section 18 would not bar where the allegations do not make out a offence under the Act. He submitted that mere use of offensive language does not by itself attract the Act; the insult must be intentional and tied to caste identity. Dehadrai argued that Bharti's remarks were made in the context of a provocation—his sister had allegedly been abused on a live social media feed. He stated: “I was not even talking about the gentleman. It was after a provocation. My sister was abused on live social media feed. I responded to that which some people don't like. But my intention was not to name someone's caste. Neither am I seeking to insult or humiliate that person based on caste identity.”
Court's Observations on Context and Provocation
Justice Banerjee, however, made it clear that the alleged statements made by Azad against Bharti's family were not the issue before the Court. The judge remarked: “You have your angst, grievance, that is different. What is flowing is this is singular statement made, not even referring to what are statements made by him. That is not the concern. I have to see what is the context here.” The Court emphasized that it would only examine the specific remarks that form the subject of the FIR, not any prior exchanges or provocations. This approach suggests that the defense of provocation may not carry significant weight at the stage of .
The Court also observed that the words used by Bharti were offensive, and when counsel sought to hand up a fresh extract of the remarks, the judge objected, stating that the offensive material need not be circulated or repeated in open court. The exchange briefly escalated, with counsel indicating that he understood the Court to be raising the prospect of contempt. The judge clarified that there was nothing personal, that counsel was free to rely on the material already on record, and that the Court was only declining to have fresh extracts filed or the language repeated aloud. The Court added: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Counsel then proceeded with his arguments.
No , Order Reserved
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court declined to grant any to Bharti, meaning he remains without a shield against arrest until the reserved order is delivered. The Court issued notice to the prosecution and reserved its order. The judge indicated that, having read the application, a simple notice was sufficient for the day, and that could not be granted at this stage.
The prosecution had informed the Court that no notice had yet been served on Bharti because the investigating officer had only recently obtained his address. This delay, combined with the Court's refusal to grant interim relief, places Bharti in a precarious position. However, the Court has not recorded any finding on the merits, and the applies.
Legal Implications and Significance
This case highlights several important procedural and substantive issues under the SC/ST Act. First, the Court's insistence on examining whether the two identified portions by themselves attract the Act signals that it is taking a narrow view of the case, which could benefit Bharti if the remarks are found to lack the requisite intent to humiliate on caste grounds. Second, the Court's questioning of the police on the delay in issuing notice underscores that procedural lapses by the investigating agency may be relevant at the bail stage, even in cases where a exists.
The exchange over the circulation of offensive material is also significant as a reminder of the court's inherent power to control its own proceedings. The Court's refusal to allow fresh extracts to be filed or the language to be repeated aloud demonstrates that and the dignity of the court are paramount, even in cases involving allegations of caste-based hate speech. This procedural point is likely to be cited in future hearings where counsel attempt to introduce inflammatory material in open court.
For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of carefully framing the case under the SC/ST Act, particularly the element of intentional insult or humiliation based on caste identity. The Court's focus on the precise words used, rather than the broader context of social media exchanges, suggests that a targeted defense based on the absence of caste-based intent may be viable. At the same time, the under Section 18 remains a formidable obstacle, and the burden on the accused to show that no offence is made out is heavy.
Conclusion
The has reserved its order on Ajeet Bharti's plea, with the key question being whether the impugned remarks, viewed in isolation, constitute a offence under the SC/ST Act. The Court has declined , leaving Bharti exposed to arrest until the order is delivered. The case serves as a significant illustration of the interplay between procedural fairness, the on under the SC/ST Act, and the court's control over its proceedings. The legal community now awaits the Court's reasoned order, which will provide further clarity on the threshold for making out a case under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act.
