The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 16 September reserved its verdict on the anticipatory bail plea filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who is seeking protection from arrest in connection with FIR No. 30/2026 registered at North Avenue Police Station. The case relates to alleged casteist and derogatory remarks made against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community on social media.

What the Court Said

A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard submissions from all sides before reserving the order. During the hearing, Justice Banerjee observed that Bharti ought to have been 'circumspect' while making the alleged comments. The court also questioned Delhi Police on why no notice had been issued to the accused, asking pointedly: 'You don't require custodial interrogation?'

The court further objected to the manner in which a transcript of the alleged remarks was placed on record by Bharti's legal team, warning that it would issue a contempt notice if such language was submitted again. 'Phraseology used is not offensive, according to you? Please be aware of what you are doing,' Justice Banerjee remarked. The bench also observed that at the present stage, it was only required to examine whether a prima facie case was made out — and indicated that outright protection from arrest appeared difficult to sustain at this juncture.

Bharti's Defence

Appearing for Bharti, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai argued that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not attracted because the alleged remarks were not made with an intention to insult or humiliate Azad on account of his caste identity. 'What I am trying to show is that an abusive statement by itself does not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act. There are Supreme Court judgments on this,' Dehadrai submitted.

The defence contended that Bharti's remarks were made in response to alleged abuse directed at his sister on social media, and that his client had not targeted Azad because of his caste. 'My sister was abused on a social media feed; I responded to that. Some people may not like it, but my intention was not to malign... I have not even named Mr Azad's caste,' Dehadrai argued. He further submitted that a caste reference alone would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act unless accompanied by the requisite intent to insult or humiliate on the ground of caste.

Police and Complainant's Stand

Delhi Police's counsel submitted that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days prior to the hearing, which explained the delay in issuing notice. On the merits, the police argued that the alleged remarks were directed against a particular caste, were made publicly on social media, and that Bharti did not belong to the same caste — satisfying the three elements required to attract the SC/ST Act.

Counsel for the complainant also opposed the plea, arguing that Bharti had knowingly targeted a particular caste and that the content had been accessed by approximately 23,000 people. The complainant's counsel contended that repeated caste references in a publicly accessible post satisfied the requirement of remarks being made 'in a place within public view,' and further invoked Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which bars the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the statute is established.

Background: Trial Court Had Already Rejected Bail

Bharti had earlier approached the Patiala House Courts seeking anticipatory bail. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed his plea on 7 September, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted. The trial court found that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, noting that the alleged remarks contained 'an express, repeated invocation of caste names' and involved references to caste hierarchy and marriageability. The trial court clarified that its observations were confined to the pre-arrest stage and did not constitute a finding on Bharti's guilt or innocence.

The FIR has been registered under provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Delhi High Court's reserved verdict is now awaited.