Back
YouTuber Ajeet Bharti Denied by in SC/ST Act Case
The on Thursday dismissed the plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, holding that a under the was made out against him. Justice Saurabh Banerjee ruled that the under Section 18 of the Act precluded the grant of , rendering the petition "." The decision comes in response to an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks made by Bharti against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, a prominent Dalit leader and chief of the .
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered on
, at Delhi’s
based on a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the
. The complaint arose from an episode of Bharti’s self-titled programme, "Saptahik Bakaiti," uploaded on his verified YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) accounts on
. The video, which garnered approximately 23,100 views by the time of the complaint, allegedly contained statements that were
"casteist, derogatory and humiliating towards persons of the Scheduled Caste community,"
specifically targeting MP Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
The FIR invoked multiple provisions: 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The trial court, in its
order denying
, had observed that the assertion that the MP
"should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl"
was a specific reference to caste and humiliating in nature.
Arguments Before the High Court
Bharti’s counsel,
, argued that the SC/ST Act was not attracted because there was no intentional insult or humiliation. He submitted that the remarks must be viewed in their complete context, including preceding and following portions of the video. Dehadrai explained that Bharti, who identifies as an anti-caste discrimination activist, had made the statements in reaction to a derogatory comment posted about his married sister on social media.
"In provocation and reaction, I say something,"
he told the court. He further contended that Bharti had not used any casteist slur and that his primary source of income was through short videos and podcasts.
Opposing the plea, the argued that the words used directly insulted a particular caste and were made on a public social-media platform, not in a private setting. The prosecutor emphasized that around 23,000 people were online when the statements were made, and the caste was repeatedly referenced. The police also described Bharti as a "habitual offender," noting previous adverse remarks against a former Chief Justice of India. Counsel for complainant Chandrashekhar Azad added that the remarks were "derogatory and intentional," pointing out that the caste was repeatedly mentioned.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while pronouncing the verdict, held that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were against Bharti. Section 3(1)(r) criminalizes intentional insult or intimidation of a member of an SC/ST community with intent to humiliate, while Section 3(1)(s) deals with abusing an SC/ST member by caste name. The court noted that the under Section 18 of the Act clearly precluded the grant of once a was established.
The judge stated:
"...a case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is
against the applicant (Mr Bharti) and considering the
(on grant of bail) under the SC/ST Act, the present petition seeking grant of
is dismissed being
."
The detailed order is awaited.
The High Court had earlier, during oral arguments, questioned the on why no notice had been issued to Bharti and whether was required. However, the final decision aligned with the trial court’s view that the material an offence under Section 3(1)(r), attracting the bar.
Legal Analysis: Under Section 18 SC/ST Act
The ruling reinforces the stringent nature of the SC/ST Act, which imposes an almost absolute bar on when a exists. Section 18 of the Act provides that nothing in (now replaced by ) shall apply to any case involving the arrest of a person accused of an offence under the Act. The has repeatedly held that this bar is not an automatic blanket; it can be lifted only if the complaint is found to be or does not disclose any offence at all. In this case, both the trial court and the High Court found that the were .
The defense’s argument that the remarks were made in the heat of the moment and in response to provocation did not persuade the court. The public nature of the broadcast and the repeated references to caste were critical factors. The court implicitly rejected the "context" defense, emphasizing that the operates regardless of the speaker’s motive when the content itself is prima facie insulting.
Impact on Legal Practice and Social Media Discourse
This judgment serves as a cautionary precedent for content creators and social media influencers. It underscores that the SC/ST Act applies with full force to online platforms, and that provocative or retaliatory remarks based on caste cannot be shielded by claims of free speech or personal provocation. Legal practitioners handling similar cases must be prepared to demonstrate that the allegations are either wholly false or do not meet the statutory threshold to overcome the .
For the legal community, the decision reaffirms the high bar for
in SC/ST Act cases. It also highlights the importance of examining the entire context of alleged remarks, but only to the extent that the context does not negate the
of an offence. The trial court’s earlier observation that
"repeated caste references aimed at an MP are not 'stray' remarks"
is likely to be cited in future litigations.
Conclusion
The ’s dismissal of Ajeet Bharti’s plea marks a significant step in the ongoing legal proceedings. Bharti now faces potential arrest and further investigation. The detailed order, when released, will provide deeper insight into the court’s interpretation of the context and intent behind the alleged remarks. For now, the ruling sends a clear message: the under the SC/ST Act will be strictly enforced in cases involving prima facie caste-based insults, even when made in the heat of online exchanges. The case also raises broader questions about the boundaries of free expression and the responsibility of public figures when commenting on caste identity in a deeply stratified society.
