A Delhi court on Monday (September 7) rejected anticipatory bail for reservation reform activist and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case filed under the SC/ST Act. In its detailed order released on Wednesday, the court said Bharti had, prima facie, invoked caste hierarchy, caste-based ideas of purity and notions of upper-caste superiority over lower castes in matters of marriage and lineage while making remarks about Dalit leader and Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan.
According to legal news outlet Bar and Bench, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts made these observations while dismissing Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, commonly known as the SC/ST Act.
The court observed that Bharti's statement that Chandrashekhar Azad should make himself worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman was a direct reference to caste and was prima facie humiliating. It questioned why someone considered suitable to marry within the SC/ST community would have to become "something extra" or "something more" to be regarded as worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman.
Based on this reasoning, the court prima facie found that the requirements for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act were met. The provision concerns intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC/ST community with the intention of humiliating them in a place within public view.
This finding was crucial because Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prevents courts from granting anticipatory bail when the Act's provisions are prima facie applicable.
WHY WAS AJEET BHARTI BOOKED UNDER THE SC/ST ACT?
An FIR was registered against 38-year-old Ajeet Bharti at Delhi's North Avenue police station on August 23 following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, the Delhi State president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), headed by Chandrashekhar Azad.
Bharti was booked under provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The complaint related to a YouTube livestream titled "SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti".
According to the complaint, Bharti was responding to a viewer who had suggested that he marry his sister to Chandrashekhar Azad, claiming that doing so would bring an end to caste-based reservation.
The complaint alleged that Bharti made caste-based and abusive remarks in response, along with objectionable comments about Azad and BR Ambedkar. It further accused him of making sexually degrading remarks about women and issuing threats.
The FIR alleged that Bharti mentioned the "Dom" and "Chamar" castes while responding to the viewer. He subsequently said that simply being a "Chamar and an MP" was not enough for marriage and that Azad would first have to prove himself worthy of marrying a "Savarna" or upper-caste woman.
During the anticipatory bail hearing on September 7, Bharti's lawyer, Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie applicable.
As recorded in the court order, Dehadrai argued that the complainant had neither witnessed the alleged incident nor been personally insulted or intimidated. He also submitted that no specific member of the SC/ST community had been insulted in public view.
The defence further argued that Bharti's remarks were rhetorical and hypothetical and were not directed towards any actual or identified woman.
DELHI COURT SAYS CASTE WAS CENTRAL TO THE REMARKS
The Delhi court took a different prima facie view of Bharti's statements. Judge Laler noted that the remarks included an "invocation of caste names" and said this was not simply an isolated or argumentative reference to caste. Instead, caste served as the central basis of his response, Bar and Bench reported.
The court gave particular importance to Bharti's statement that Azad needed to become worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman. It held that the remark was more than a general reference to caste because it directly connected a person's suitability for marriage with his caste identity.
The court consequently held that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) were prima facie established. As a result, Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred the court from granting Bharti anticipatory bail.
However, the court did not conclude that Bharti's arrest was necessary for the investigation. Judge Laler noted that had the SC/ST Act provisions not been involved, the court may have considered granting him relief.
The court also observed that the incident appeared to have been a spontaneous response to a comment and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Nevertheless, since the SC/ST Act provisions were prima facie found applicable, the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail became decisive.
The judge clarified that the observations were made only for deciding Bharti's anticipatory bail application. They should not be interpreted as a final determination of his guilt or innocence, the validity of the allegations or the complete context of the video.
The detailed order therefore sets out the court's reasoning at the bail stage and does not determine the merits of the criminal case.
