The Delhi High Court on Monday, 14 September 2026, declined to grant immediate protection from arrest to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, adjourning his anticipatory bail plea to Wednesday, 16 September in connection with an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina Lok Sabha member Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community. The case has drawn significant attention given its intersection of online speech, caste-based laws, and parliamentary representation.

What Happened in Court

A single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee deferred the hearing after Bharti's counsel informed the court that he had not yet received a complete copy of the FIR registered against him at North Avenue Police Station. The court was assured that the full FIR would be furnished to the applicant's counsel during the course of the day, after which the matter was listed for Wednesday.

Bharti's counsel sought interim protection from arrest until the next date of hearing. However, Justice Banerjee declined to grant any immediate interim relief at this stage, leaving Bharti without court-ordered protection from custody until the matter is taken up again.

The FIR and Allegations

The case stems from FIR No. 30/2026, registered on 23 August 2026 at North Avenue Police Station under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

According to the FIR and material placed before the trial court, Bharti allegedly made casteist, derogatory, and humiliating remarks concerning Chandra Shekhar Azad — a sitting Lok Sabha member from Nagina — and persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community during an episode of his programme published on social media. The allegations arose after Bharti allegedly responded to a comment suggesting he arrange his sister's marriage with Azad. His response reportedly included references to the 'Dom' and 'Chamar' castes and questioned Azad's suitability to marry a woman from a 'Savarna' family.

How the Trial Court Ruled Earlier

Bharti had first sought anticipatory bail before the Patiala House Courts, but Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed his application on 7 September 2026, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was attracted.

The trial court held that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST law, which deals with intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent to humiliate. It observed that the impugned passage contained 'an express, repeated invocation of caste names' and was not merely a stray reference made during an argument.

The court further held that the remarks invoked 'caste hierarchy and marriageability directly' — particularly the statement that Chandra Shekhar Azad would first have to 'make himself worthy' to seek the hand of a woman from a 'Savarna' family. This was characterised as a 'specific reference to caste and humiliating,' prima facie reflecting a caste-based notion that a person from the Scheduled Caste community had to be 'something extra' or 'worthy' to marry into an upper-caste family.

Social Media Reach and Legal Context

The trial court noted that the alleged episode had been published on a publicly accessible social media platform and had garnered more than 23,000 views, observing that the 'public view' ingredient of the offence could not be treated as plainly absent at the pre-arrest stage. This is significant because caste-based offences under the SC/ST Act carry heightened thresholds for bail, making the statutory bar under Section 18 a formidable hurdle.

Notably, the trial court clarified that its observations were confined to the limited and tentative purpose of examining the applicability of the statutory bar and did not amount to a finding on Bharti's guilt or innocence. The matter will next be heard by the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 16 September 2026, when the bench is expected to have the full FIR before it.