New Delhi: A Delhi court Monday dismissed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case related to allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast, for which an FIR was registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The case stems from an Aug 22 YouTube programme titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti. The defence also contended that police had not served Bharti a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), corresponding to Section 41A(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“The accused repeatedly used caste identity in a derogatory and humiliating context,” he submitted before the court. Additional sessions judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler rejected the defence argument that Bharti’s remarks did not specifically target a caste. Jai Anant Dehradai, contended that the comments were made in response to provocation by a commenter on the video, the judge orally observed, “Even if I’m provoked by him, I can’t make such remarks, targeting a caste While Bharti’s counsel. The FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station on a complaint filed by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi state president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), headed by Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad. Appearing for the complainant, advocate MS Arya argued that the video amounted to commentary against reservation on an online platform and contained casteist remarks directed at a particular community. Dehradai argued that no specific casteist remark had been made that would attract provisions of the SC/ST Act. He submitted that the statement in question was made using the person’s full name and did not target a caste. Police opposed the anticipatory bail plea, citing the politically and socially sensitive nature of the subject. They submitted that the video recording had the potential to reach members of different caste communities, raising questions about whether Bharti intended, knew, or had reason to believe that the language used could promote hatred, hostility, ill will, or disturbance of public tranquillity.