Delhi High Court Tells YouTuber Ajeet Bharti to Be Circumspect in SC/ST Act Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday made significant oral observations while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who is facing charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , for allegedly making casteist remarks against Nagina Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad. Justice Saurabh Banerjee told Bharti’s counsel that a person who designates himself as a YouTube commentator must be “ circumspect ” about the platform, the context, and the impact of his words. The Court indicated it would view the impugned video in chambers before deciding the plea, which remains part-heard .

The Allegations and the FIR

The case arises from a YouTube broadcast on August 22 , where Bharti, in his self-titled programme, is said to have made derogatory and humiliating remarks concerning the caste and marriageability of MP Chandrashekhar Azad, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. The comments allegedly invoked upper and lower caste hierarchies, suggesting that Azad, being a “Chamar and an MP,” would need to “make himself worthy” to seek marriage into a “Savarna” family. The trial court, which earlier rejected Bharti’s anticipatory bail , held that these statements prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act , as they touched upon caste-based notions of purity and superiority. The FIR also includes charges under Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act .

Court’s Oral Observations: A Commentary on Responsibility

During the hearing, Justice Banerjee made a series of pointed remarks that go to the heart of the legal standard expected of self-styled online commentators. The Court observed that once a person describes himself as a YouTube commentator, he is expected to understand who he is, the platform he uses, the context in which he speaks, and the impact of what he says. “If you are not aware, you should not be there,” the judge said. The Court acknowledged that there is no formal rulebook or professional degree for such a role, but that very lack of regulation, the judge noted, imposes a greater responsibility on the individual to be conscious of the consequences of his words.

“There is no YouTube commentator. There is a YouTuber. You have designated yourself. You should be aware of what you are, where you are and when you are. If you are not aware then, you should not be there. Two, there is no written prescribed norm. You are what you have created yourself. You don’t have a degree. You might as well know what you are doing. You cannot, under these caste and programs come up to a level of expressing your opinion in naming.”

This framing is significant. It suggests that the absence of institutional checks does not grant greater latitude; instead, the reach and influence of the platform itself create a duty of care . The Court’s oral remarks, though not a final judgment, signal a judicial expectation that online commentators must act with heightened circumspection, especially when their content touches upon protected areas like caste.

The Line Between Commentary and Personal Attack

The Court also highlighted the critical boundary between discussing issues and targeting individuals. In podcasts or similar programmes, the judge observed, a commentator must be careful not to personally name someone in a manner that crosses legal limits. This, the Court indicated, was the aspect that could create difficulty for the petitioner. The remarks were not about abstract caste commentary but about directly naming a sitting MP and making statements about his caste status in the context of marriage.

The judge’s observation aligns with established legal principles that distinguish between protected speech and speech that humiliates or intimidates on the basis of caste. The SC/ST Act creates a special protective regime, and the Court cautioned that one cannot treat such a protected area like any ordinary public debate. “You cannot enter into a common domain and express yourself,” the judge said, referring to the need for circumspection under the Act.

Statutory Context: The SC/ST Act and Anticipatory Bail

The case also raises important issues about the operation of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act , which restricts the grant of anticipatory bail if a prima facie case under the Act is made out. The trial court had already found that the remarks prima facie disclosed an intention to humiliate on caste grounds, invoking the paradigm of “ intent to humiliate ” identified in the Supreme Court ’s decision in Shajan Skaria . The High Court’s oral observations that a protected area cannot be treated like ordinary public debate reflect this statutory design.

However, the Court has not yet decided the plea. It stated it would view the entire video in chambers to assess the context and intent. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai , argued that the petitioner is a political commentator whose primary source of income comes from such videos, and that his intention was never to denigrate any caste. Bharti has publicly defended himself, stating that his remarks were in response to offensive comments against his sister and mother, and that he is an anti-caste-discrimination activist.

What Happens Next

The anticipatory bail plea is part-heard . The Court has directed that the video be watched in chambers , and arguments are expected to resume. The respondent submitted that the matter is not an isolated instance, pointing to multiple FIRs registered against the petitioner for similar conduct. The Court’s ultimate decision will turn on whether the video, when viewed in its entirety, supports a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act and whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the Section 18 bar.

Analysis: Implications for Online Speech and Legal Responsibility

While these are oral observations and not findings, the themes the Court chose to press are of broad relevance. The legal system is still working out the standard of responsibility that attaches to self-appointed online commentators who reach mass audiences without the editorial oversight of traditional media. The Court’s remark that a commentator who has created his own role bears more responsibility for understanding his impact, not less, is a notable departure from the intuition that informal platforms grant greater freedom.

This case also highlights the tension between freedom of speech and the protective purpose of the SC/ST Act. The Act is designed to prevent humiliation and intimidation of historically oppressed communities, and the courts have consistently held that caste-based remarks that invoke hierarchy or purity can amount to an offence even if made in the context of public debate. The High Court’s observation that one cannot treat a protected area like ordinary public debate reinforces that principle.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder that the boundaries of permissible speech online are not limitless. The absence of formal regulation does not mean an absence of legal consequences. The Court’s emphasis on the duty to be “ circumspect ” may influence how future cases involving social media commentators are approached, particularly where statutes like the SC/ST Act are invoked.

Conclusion

Nothing has been decided in this case. The Delhi High Court has not yet ruled on Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea, and the petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence . However, the oral observations from the bench provide a window into the judicial thinking on the responsibility of online commentators and the special protections under the SC/ST Act. As the Court proceeds to view the impugned video, the legal community will watch closely for the final outcome, which may set an important precedent for the intersection of digital speech and anti-atrocity laws.