Ajeet Bharti Denied Anticipatory Bail: Delhi Court Explains SC/ST Act Case Decision

A Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to reservation reform activist and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

In its detailed order, the court said Bharti’s remarks against Nagina MP and Dalit leader Chandrashekhar Azad prima facie invoked caste hierarchy, caste-based notions of purity and the alleged superiority of upper castes over lower castes in matters related to marriage and lineage.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts rejected Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea on September 7. The detailed reasoning behind the decision was subsequently reported after the court order was released.

The case relates to comments made by Bharti during a YouTube livestream while responding to a discussion involving Chandrashekhar Azad, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and heads the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).

The court examined Bharti’s alleged statement that Azad would have to make himself “worthy” of marrying an upper-caste woman. According to the court, the remark specifically connected a person's worthiness for marriage with caste identity.

The court observed that the statement raised the question of why a person considered fit for marriage within an SC/ST community would need to become “something more” to be considered worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman.

Based on its prima facie assessment, the court held that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act were attracted. The provision deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community with the intention of humiliating them in a place within public view.

The finding became significant because Section 18 of the SC/ST Act restricts the granting of anticipatory bail when an offence under the Act is prima facie established.

The FIR against Bharti was registered at Delhi's North Avenue police station on August 23 following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, the Delhi State president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).

Bharti was booked under provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The complaint related to a YouTube livestream in which Bharti allegedly made caste-based remarks while responding to a viewer's comment concerning Chandrashekhar Azad. The FIR also alleged objectionable remarks about Azad and BR Ambedkar, sexually degrading references to women and threats.

During the anticipatory bail hearing, Bharti's lawyer argued that provisions of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie applicable. The defence maintained that the complainant was not personally present during the alleged incident and that no specific SC/ST individual had been insulted or intimidated in public view.

The defence also argued that Bharti's remarks were rhetorical and hypothetical and did not amount to an offence under the provisions cited.

However, the court took a different prima facie view, observing that references to caste names were not merely incidental but formed a central part of the response being examined.

The court particularly focused on the alleged assertion that Chandrashekhar Azad needed to become worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman, finding that the statement attached a person's social worthiness for marriage to caste identity.

The court noted that custodial interrogation did not appear necessary and that the remarks seemed to have been made as a spontaneous response during the livestream. It also indicated that anticipatory bail may have been considered if the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not involved.

However, since the court found the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act to be prima facie applicable, the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail became decisive.

The court clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of Bharti's anticipatory bail application and should not be treated as a final determination of his guilt or innocence. The criminal case and the allegations against him remain subject to further legal proceedings.