दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने अजीत भारती के एंटिसिपेटरी बाइल पर निर्णय रोका, पुलिस से नोटिस न जारी करने पर सवाल

Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On Ajeet Bharti's Plea For Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Act Case, Asks Why Police Notice Not Issued Yet

Nupur Thapliyal

16 Sept 2026 3:51 PM IST

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the Delhi Police as to why no notice had been issued to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in an SC/ST Act case and whether his custodial interrogation was required, while reserving its order on his anticipatory bail plea.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee earlier today watched the impugned video, wherein Bharti purportedly made certain comments.

During the hearing, the judge asked the police, “Why no notice? You don't require interrogation?”, after being informed that the FIR was registered on August 25.

The counsel appearing for Delhi Police informed the Court that the Investigating Officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days ago and was now able to access him.

The Court was hearing Bharti's plea challenging the trial court's rejection of his anticipatory bail application in connection with an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks against Scheduled Caste members, including Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar.

During the hearing, the Court also considered the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which restricts anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the Act is made out.

Bharti's counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the alleged remarks did not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act unless there was an intentional insult or humiliation on account of caste identity.

He submitted that Bharti's remarks had to be viewed in the context in which they were made, including comments allegedly made against Bharti's sister on social media.

“I was not even talking about the gentleman. It was after a provocation. My sister was abused on live social media feed. I responded to that which some people don't like. But my intention was not to name someone's caste. Neither am I seeking to insult or humiliate that person based on caste identity,” Dehadrai submitted.

The counsel added that the alleged caste reference, by itself, would not constitute an offence unless accompanied by an intention to insult or humiliate the person on the ground of caste.

He further argued that Bharti's remarks concerning Azad were made in the context of an exchange on social media and that Bharti had not intended to target Azad because of his caste.

The Court however observed that the alleged statements made by Azad against Bharti's family were not the issue before it.

“You have your angst, grievance, that is different. What is flowing is this is singular statement made, not even referring to what are statements made by him. That is not the concern. I have to see what is the context here,” the Court remarked.

The Delhi Police on the other hand opposed the plea and submitted that the alleged remarks were directly insulting to a particular caste and had been made on a social-media platform, rather than in a private setting.

Counsel for the complainant argued that the alleged remarks were derogatory and intentional, pointing out that around 23,000 people were allegedly online when the statements were made and that the caste was repeatedly referred to.

The complainant's counsel also relied on Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to argue that the anticipatory-bail plea was not maintainable once a prima facie case under the Act was disclosed.

Dehadrai, in rebuttal, submitted that Section 18 would not bar anticipatory bail where the allegations did not make out a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act.

Bharti moved the high court after the trial court rejected his plea observing that his remarks concerning the caste and marriageability of a sitting Member of Parliament prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act, adding that he invoked 'Upper' and 'Lower' caste hierarchy in marriage which prima facie showed an intent to humiliate.

The case arose from an episode of Bharti's self-titled programme, uploaded on his verified social media account and YouTube on August 22, which allegedly contained casteist, derogatory and humiliating remarks concerning members of the Scheduled Caste community, Chandra Shekhar Azad (a sitting MP from Nagina) and Dr BR Ambedkar.

The Trial Court held that the assertion that the MP in question should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl, is a specific reference to caste and humiliating as to why a person fit to be married to anyone in SC / ST community has to be something extra or something more or worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste.

The FIR has been lodged under provisions of the SC/ST Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) (aggravated criminal intimidation) BNS as well as Information Technology Act.

Case Title: Ajeet Bharti v. State

Powered by Nyaya 247 News