Delhi Police, Azad oppose Ajit Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in SC/ST Act case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 16 September reserved its order on YouTuber Ajit Bharti's plea for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him over alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.

The Delhi Police opposed the plea, arguing that the language allegedly used by Bharti directly insulted a particular Scheduled Caste and that the case attracted provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Azad's lawyer also opposed the plea, arguing that Bharti's remarks were derogatory, intentional and made in a public forum.

Bharti's counsel, however, argued that the SC/ST Act was not attracted because there was no intention to insult or humiliate Azad on the ground of his caste. He said the remarks had to be considered in the context in which they were made and claimed that Bharti was responding to a provocative comment involving a member of his family.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after hearing the arguments, said he would pronounce his order on the plea.

During the hearing, the prosecutor argued that the alleged remarks were made on a public social-media platform and therefore could not be treated as a private exchange.

"These words were allegedly called by the accused on a social media platform, so it is not that it was done in closed walls. All these ingredients are there to attract the SC/ST Act and this anticipatory bail plea does not lie," the prosecutor argued.

The judge, however, questioned the police about the progress of the investigation and asked how many notices had been issued to Bharti to join the probe. "No notices sent to him? Why? You don't require custodial interrogation or what?" the judge asked.

The prosecutor said the investigating officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days earlier from a social-media platform and therefore had been unable to send him a notice.

The case stems from a YouTube livestream hosted by Bharti on 22 August, titled 'SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti'.

According to the complaint and court records, the controversy began when a viewer commented that Bharti should get his sister married to Azad and that reservation would then end.

Bharti responded that he would not get his sister married to "a fool like Chandrashekhar". He subsequently referred to caste while discussing Azad's supposed eligibility to marry a woman from an upper-caste family. The complaint also alleges that he made derogatory remarks about Azad's appearance and invoked Dr B.R. Ambedkar's marriage to a Brahmin woman.

The trial court, while rejecting Bharti's anticipatory bail application on 7 September, took particular note of his references to ‘Chamar’ and ‘Savarna’ and his suggestion that merely being a "Chamar and an MP" was not sufficient for marriage and that Azad would first have to "make himself worthy" of marrying a woman from a ‘Savarna’ family.

The court said the language, at the prima facie stage, invoked notions of caste hierarchy, caste-based purity and the perceived superiority of upper castes over lower castes in matters of marriage and lineage. It held that the remarks could not simply be characterised as a stray caste reference or generic abuse.

Bharti has disputed that interpretation. In his response after the FIR, he said the controversy began with a comment about his mother and sister that he considered deeply offensive and provocative. He maintained that he had not used a casteist word against Azad and argued that his response should be viewed in that context.

He has also questioned the interpretation of his use of the word ‘worthy’, arguing that the term need not necessarily refer to caste and that the controversy had turned a statement made during an online exchange into a caste-related offence.

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

The complaint alleged that Bharti had made caste-based, abusive, humiliating and sexually degrading remarks concerning Azad, members of the Scheduled Caste community and Ambedkar. The case invokes provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Delhi High Court is now considering whether Bharti should receive protection from arrest while the investigation continues.

With PTI inputs