New Delhi, September 16, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case concerning his alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard arguments on Bharti’s plea seeking protection from arrest in FIR No. 30/2026 registered at North Avenue Police Station under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
During the hearing, the High Court questioned why Delhi Police had not issued a notice to Bharti and observed that he ought to have been “circumspect” while making the alleged comments. The court also questioned whether custodial interrogation was required.
Delhi Police told the court that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti’s address only two days earlier and was therefore unable to issue a notice before that.
The court also described the alleged words used by Bharti as offensive and objected to the manner in which a transcript containing the remarks was placed before it. Justice Banerjee cautioned Bharti’s counsel over reproducing the alleged language in court and orally referred to the possibility of issuing a contempt notice.
Appearing for Bharti, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai argued that the SC/ST Act provisions were not attracted because the alleged remarks were not made with an intention to insult or humiliate Azad on account of his caste.
Dehadrai submitted that Bharti had responded to alleged abuse directed at his sister on social media and maintained that his client had not targeted Azad because of his caste. He argued that an abusive statement by itself did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act and referred to Supreme Court judgments in support of his submissions.
The counsel further argued that a caste reference would not by itself constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act unless the requisite intention to insult or humiliate on the ground of caste was established.
The High Court, however, said that at the present stage it was required to consider whether a prima facie case had been made out. Justice Banerjee orally observed that a simple notice was sufficient at this stage and questioned whether protection from arrest could be granted.
Opposing anticipatory bail, Delhi Police submitted that the alleged remarks were publicly made on social media, were directed at a particular caste and that Bharti did not belong to the caste in question. The complainant’s counsel also opposed the plea, contending that Bharti had knowingly targeted a particular caste.
The complainant’s counsel submitted that around 23,000 people had access to the social-media content and that caste references were repeatedly made, satisfying the requirement of the alleged remarks being made in a place within public view. It was also argued that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act barred anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the statute was established.
In response, Dehadrai maintained that Section 18 would not apply if the allegations, even when accepted at face value, did not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act. He reiterated that Bharti’s comments followed alleged abuse of his sister on social media and were not intended to insult or humiliate Azad because of his caste.
Bharti had previously approached the Patiala House Courts for anticipatory bail. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed the plea on September 7, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied.
The trial court had found that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, relating to intentional insult or intimidation of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member with intent to humiliate.
It had also observed that the alleged remarks contained repeated caste references and references to caste hierarchy and marriageability. The trial court clarified that its observations were limited to the tentative assessment of the statutory bar at the pre-arrest stage and did not constitute a finding on Bharti’s guilt or innocence.
The High Court reserved its decision after hearing submissions from Bharti, Delhi Police and the complainant.
FOLLOW NOW
