YouTuber Ajeet Bharti Denied Bail in SC/ST Act Case by Delhi HC! ⚖️
YouTuber Ajeet Bharti Denied Bail in SC/ST Act Case by Delhi HC! ⚖️
Delhi High Court rejects YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in SC/ST Act case over alleged casteist remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant verdict, dismissing YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in a case concerning alleged caste-based remarks. The court found a prima facie case against Bharti under the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This decision means Bharti is now barred from seeking pre-arrest bail, as the Act contains specific provisions that prevent such relief in cases where its sections are invoked.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, stated that the allegations fell under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The case stems from a video allegedly uploaded by Mr. Bharti on August 22.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), this video, which garnered around 23,100 views at the time of registration, contained "caste-based abuses, slurs and derogatory remarks" directed at Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The complaint further highlighted remarks against Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar and other members of the SC and ST communities.
The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence, including watching relevant portions of the contentious video in chambers and scrutinizing its transcript. The court noted that Mr. Bharti's counsel conceded that his client does not belong to an SC or ST community and that the video was indeed posted on a public social media platform, making it accessible "within public view." A key argument from Bharti's legal team, that Mr.
Azad needed to be physically present when the remarks were made, was firmly rejected by the court. The court emphasized that content uploaded online is freely accessible, can be viewed, heard, and shared by anyone, thereby fulfilling the criteria for public dissemination.
In its detailed observation, the court highlighted that Mr. Bharti had "repeatedly used caste names and slurs" while referring, both directly and indirectly, to Mr. Azad.
These were not dismissed as mere "stray or general comments." Instead, the court found them to be
clear references to caste, and explicit invocation of ideas of caste superiority prevalent in society,
particularly in relation to the institution of marriage, which the court noted "represents age old notions of the hierarchy of the castes."
Mr. Bharti's defense also presented an argument claiming that the remarks were made in response to online provocation. However, this submission was also dismissed by the court. Justice Banerjee remarked that such provocation, even if it occurred, was not from the named individual, and furthermore, Mr.
Bharti had not subsequently issued any "clarification/ explanation/ retraction/ apologies" for the content. This ruling upholds the trial court's decision from September 7, which had also rejected his anticipatory bail plea, signaling a serious legal challenge for the YouTuber.
