A Delhi court on Monday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who is facing a case registered under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over alleged caste-related remarks made during one of his YouTube programmes.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts declined to grant Bharti protection from arrest in the matter.
During the hearing, Bharti’s counsel, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the police status report indicated that investigators were primarily seeking to collect electronic data. He urged the court to consider the context in which Bharti’s remarks were allegedly made and maintained that the YouTuber had no intention of discriminating against anyone on the basis of caste.
Dehadrai argued that merely establishing that the complainant belongs to an SC/ST community would not, by itself, establish an offence under the stringent provisions invoked in the case. According to the defence, Bharti’s comments were made in response to offensive remarks allegedly directed at his mother or sister, which his lawyer described as serious provocation.
The defence further maintained that Bharti had neither used a caste-based slur nor expressed any discriminatory sentiment against an entire community.
Dehadrai also placed portions of Bharti’s statement before the court concerning Dr BR Ambedkar. He submitted that Bharti had referred to Babasaheb with the “greatest respect” and had invoked his legacy while arguing against offensive or derogatory comments directed at other communities.
The lawyer also addressed allegations concerning Bhim Army chief and MP Chandra Shekhar Aazad, questioning whether the complainant was seeking to equate the politician involved in the present dispute with a historical figure such as Dr BR Ambedkar.
According to the defence, Bharti’s broader argument was that every caste and community is entitled to take pride in its history and prominent figures, but such pride cannot become an excuse to demean another community.
“We are not demeaning others, My Lord. And nobody should demean others,” Dehadrai submitted.
He further pointed to another portion of Bharti’s remarks in which the YouTuber allegedly acknowledged the contribution of different sections of Indian society, including Dalits. The defence argued that Bharti’s statements expressly recognised that no community could be dismissed as having contributed nothing to the country.
Dehadrai reiterated that Bharti’s comments were directed at a particular individual in the context of an ongoing exchange rather than at an entire caste or community.
“Nowhere have I used a caste slur or made a caste-based abuse against any community, My Lord,” the lawyer submitted.
He added that Bharti had been provoked by remarks concerning a family member and that his response should be assessed in that context.
“I was provoked. I said something in the context of the person whose name was taken. I have no other intention,” Dehadrai told the court.
The prosecution, however, opposed the plea and argued that a prima facie case had been established against Bharti. The complainant’s counsel contended that the YouTuber’s commentary went beyond an alleged personal exchange and was abusive not merely towards the complainant but towards the wider community.
Bharti was booked after allegations that he had made casteist comments during his YouTube show. The YouTuber has publicly rejected the allegation, maintaining that his remarks were not casteist and were instead made in response to what he described as offensive comments concerning his mother or sister.
The FIR invokes provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 196(1)(c) and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), besides provisions of the Information Technology Act.
Section 196(1)(c) of the BNS deals, among other things, with organising or participating in activities involving the use or training in criminal force or violence against a religious, racial, linguistic or regional group, caste or community, where such activity causes or is likely to cause fear, alarm or a sense of insecurity among members of that group.
The provision carries a punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
With the court now refusing anticipatory bail, Bharti does not have the protection from arrest that he had sought in the case. The allegations, however, remain allegations at this stage, and the court’s rejection of anticipatory bail does not by itself amount to a finding of guilt.
