दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने सांसद चंद्रशेखर आजाद के खिलाफ कथित जातिगत टिप्पणी के मामले में यूट्यूबर अजीत भारती की अग्रिम जमानत (anticipatory bail) याचिका खारिज कर दी और व्यवस्था दी कि डिजिटल प्लेटफॉर्म पर सामग्री अपलोड करना एससी/एसटी अधिनियम के तहत सार्वजनिक रूप से देखना (public view) माना जाएगा।
NEW DELHI — The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by popular political commentator and social media commentator Ajeet Bharti in connection with a criminal case involving alleged casteist slurs and derogatory remarks targeted at Member of Parliament and prominent Dalit activist Chandrashekhar Azad.
A single-judge bench presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, stands established against the accused. Consequently, the court ruled that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Special Act kicks in, rendering the plea for pre-arrest protection legally non-maintainable.
Background of the Offence
The controversy stems from an online video posted by Bharti on his social media handle titled SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti. The complaint was lodged at the North Avenue Police Station in New Delhi by Balakram Bauddh, the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).
According to the First Information Report (FIR), Bharti utilized derogatory and objectionable language directed toward Chandrashekhar Azad, the elected representative from Nagina, Uttar Pradesh, and made controversial comments regarding Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and affirmative action policies in India. The police subsequently registered a case under:
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3)
- Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 67
Prior to approaching the High Court, Bharti had moved the trial court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on September 7.
Observations by the High Court
Upon reviewing the audio-visual recording and the verbatim transcript of the offending broadcast, Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that the statements made were neither general political commentary nor accidental remarks. Instead, the court observed that the video contained explicit assertions of social hierarchy and caste superiority.
The court specifically highlighted remarks made by the accused regarding social traditions and marriage, observing that suggesting an individual must "make himself worthy enough" to marry outside his community served to perpetuate age-old notions of caste-based dominance. The court remarked that such statements intentionally "otherised" the targeted individual and were delivered with the primary objective of inflicting social humiliation based on caste identity.
Addressing the defense counsel’s argument that Bharti was responding to online harassment and abusive comments directed at his family members, the bench firmly rejected provocation as a legal defense under the SC/ST Act. The court clarified that retaliatory behavior on a public platform cannot serve as a protective shield against penal consequences, particularly when the speaker was fully conscious of their actions and failed to issue any subsequent retraction or unconditional public apology.
Digital Space as a "Public View"
A pivotal legal determination made in the ruling concerns the interpretation of digital platforms under the SC/ST Act. The defense had argued that the essential ingredients of the offence were not met since the alleged remarks were not made in physical proximity or within direct public sight of the victim.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that in the modern digital era, the internet functions as a dynamic, unrestricted public sphere. Content uploaded to a universally accessible platform satisfies the statutory requirement of occurring within "public view." The court noted that because digital media can be viewed, shared, and consumed worldwide without physical constraints, the physical presence of the victim at the moment of utterance is not required to attract the provisions of the law.
Legal Outcome
Because the allegations prima facie demonstrate an offence under the SC/ST Act, the High Court affirmed that Section 18 of the Act explicitly prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail. The court accordingly dismissed the petition, clearing the path for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with standard statutory procedures.
Description: The Delhi High Court rejected YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea regarding derogatory remarks directed at MP Chandrashekhar Azad. Presiding over the matter, Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that Bharti’s comments repeatedly invoked notions of caste superiority and hierarchy to humiliate the Dalit leader. The bench dismissed Bharti's defense that his statement was a response to online provocation against his family, noting that retaliatory intent offers no legal shield. Crucially, the court ruled that content uploaded to open social media platforms satisfies the requirement of being in a "place within public view" under the SC/ST Act. Establishing a prima facie case, the court invoked the statutory bar under Section 18 to deny pre-arrest relief.