Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Ajeet Bharti’s Anticipatory Bail Plea in SC/ST Act Case

Yugcharan News / 18-09-2026

The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, over alleged remarks concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad. During the hearing, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that some of the words attributed to Bharti were offensive and said he should have been more circumspect while making such comments.

The proceedings before the High Court followed the rejection of Bharti’s anticipatory bail application by a Delhi trial court on September 7. Bharti subsequently approached the High Court challenging that decision and sought protection from arrest while the case is investigated.

The case stems from a complaint concerning comments allegedly made by Bharti in a social media video. The complaint was filed in connection with remarks concerning Chandrashekhar Azad, who is a Member of Parliament from Nagina and belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The allegations also relate to comments concerning the Scheduled Caste community and Dr BR Ambedkar.

High Court Examines Alleged Remarks

During the September 16 hearing, Justice Saurabh Banerjee considered the contents of the allegedly offending video and the language attributed to Bharti.

The court orally remarked that Bharti, having presented himself as a YouTube commentator, should exercise greater caution in making public comments, particularly when the remarks concern caste and when legislation provides specific protections to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The court also described certain words appearing in the transcript of the alleged remarks as offensive. The observation was made while the High Court was considering whether Bharti should receive protection from arrest.

The court has not yet pronounced its final decision on the anticipatory bail plea. The order was reserved following submissions from Bharti’s counsel, the Delhi Police and the complainant’s side.

Police Questioned Over Lack of Notice

An important aspect of Wednesday’s hearing was the court’s query to the Delhi Police about why Bharti had not yet been issued a notice in the case.

Justice Banerjee asked the police whether custodial interrogation was required and questioned why no notice had been served on Bharti.

The police counsel told the court that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti’s address only two days earlier and had subsequently become able to contact him. The explanation came in response to the court’s questions regarding the investigation and the need for any custodial action.

The issue is significant in the context of Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea because the court was examining not only the allegations but also the investigative requirements cited by the prosecution.

What the Case Is About

The FIR was registered at Delhi’s North Avenue Police Station in August. According to reports, it invokes provisions of the SC/ST Act along with provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The complaint was connected with a video published on Bharti’s social media platform. Bar and Bench reported that the video was titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.” The complainant alleged that the video contained caste-based, abusive and derogatory remarks involving Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar.

Bharti’s side has disputed the allegations and argued that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act were not established.

His counsel has maintained that the remarks should be considered in their context and argued that Bharti did not use a casteist slur or make the comments with an intention to insult or humiliate Azad on the basis of caste. The defence has also referred to what it described as provocation involving a family member.

Trial Court Had Earlier Denied Bail

Before approaching the High Court, Bharti had sought anticipatory bail before a Delhi trial court.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts rejected the plea on September 7. The trial court held that the material before it prima facie disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

In its reasoning, the trial court examined the alleged references to caste hierarchy and marriageability. It observed that the remarks, on a prima facie assessment, invoked notions of caste hierarchy and the perceived superiority of one caste over another in matters of marriage and lineage.

The trial court’s decision did not amount to a finding of guilt. It was an assessment made at the stage of considering Bharti’s request for protection from arrest.

Bharti then moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail and seeking relief from possible arrest during the investigation.

Arguments Before the High Court

During the High Court hearing, Bharti’s counsel argued that the SC/ST Act should not be applied merely because a caste reference appeared in the alleged remarks. The defence maintained that an offence under the relevant provision requires the statutory elements to be satisfied, including the necessary intent to insult or humiliate.

The Delhi Police opposed the anticipatory bail plea. According to reports of the hearing, the police argued that the alleged words directly insulted a particular caste and supported the continuation of the criminal investigation.

Chandrashekhar Azad’s counsel also opposed the plea and argued that the alleged remarks were derogatory and intentional. The complainant's side has maintained that the comments went beyond ordinary criticism and attracted the provisions of the special law.

The competing arguments therefore centre on the interpretation of the alleged statements, their context and whether the statutory requirements for invoking the SC/ST Act are satisfied.

Court’s Remarks on Public Commentary

The High Court’s observations during the hearing focused partly on the responsibilities that accompany public commentary.

Justice Banerjee indicated that where comments involve caste and individuals covered by special statutory protections, a person making such statements should be careful about the language used. The judge’s remarks were made while considering the alleged statements and the legal questions surrounding Bharti’s request for anticipatory bail.

The court also examined the actual video and the language attributed to Bharti rather than relying solely on the descriptions of the parties.

The hearing included a separate courtroom exchange involving Bharti’s lawyer, Jai Anant Dehadrai, and Justice Banerjee over a document containing a transcript of the allegedly offensive remarks. Bar and Bench reported that the judge objected to the manner in which the document was sought to be presented and warned counsel about possible contempt proceedings.

Order Awaited

With arguments heard from the relevant sides, the Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on Bharti’s anticipatory bail application.

The court’s eventual order will determine whether Bharti receives protection from arrest while the criminal case proceeds. Until the order is pronounced, the allegations against him remain allegations and have not resulted in a final judicial determination of guilt.

The proceedings also highlight the legal questions that can arise when public comments involving caste identities are examined under the SC/ST Act. The court will ultimately have to consider the statutory provisions, the material collected during the investigation, the nature and context of the alleged remarks and the requirements governing anticipatory bail.

For now, the immediate development is that the Delhi High Court has kept its decision pending after examining the alleged comments, questioning the police about the investigation and hearing the competing submissions of the defence, prosecution and complainant.

The case is therefore awaiting the High Court’s formal order, which will determine the next stage of Bharti’s request for pre-arrest protection.