The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 16 September 2026, reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who is seeking protection from arrest in an FIR over alleged casteist and derogatory remarks targeting Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community. The case is registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Information Technology Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

What Happened in Court

A single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard arguments from Bharti's counsel, the Delhi Police, and the complainant before reserving the decision. The bench pointedly remarked that Bharti ought to have been 'circumspect' in making the alleged comments, and questioned the Delhi Police on why no notice had been issued to the accused earlier. 'You don't require custodial interrogation?' Justice Banerjee asked.

Delhi Police's counsel explained that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days prior to the hearing, which is why notice had not been served earlier. The court also objected to the manner in which a transcript of the alleged remarks was placed on record by Bharti's legal team, warning that a contempt notice could be issued if the court was handed material containing such language. 'Phraseology used is not offensive, according to you? Please be aware of what you are doing,' Justice Banerjee cautioned.

Arguments by Bharti's Defence

Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Bharti, argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not attracted because the alleged remarks were not made with the intention to insult or humiliate Chandra Shekhar Azad on account of his caste identity. Dehadrai submitted: '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.'

The defence further contended that Bharti's comments were made in response to alleged abuse directed at his sister on social media and that Azad was not targeted 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,' the counsel argued. Dehadrai also 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 intention to insult or humiliate on the ground of caste.

Delhi Police and Complainant's Stand

Delhi Police's counsel opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that the alleged remarks were directed against a particular caste and had been made publicly on social media. 'All these words have been said on social media. Third thing is that he doesn't belong to the same caste. These three things are there to attract the SC/ST Act,' the counsel submitted.

The complainant's counsel also opposed the plea, asserting that Bharti had knowingly targeted a particular caste and that the alleged remarks disclosed a prima facie offence. It was submitted that approximately 23,000 people had access to the social media content in question and that caste references were repeated, satisfying the statutory requirement of remarks made 'in a place within public view.' The counsel also 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.

Earlier Rejection and Legal Background

Bharti had initially moved the Patiala House Courts for anticipatory bail. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed that plea on 7 September 2026, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted. The trial court had observed that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r), which pertains to intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe with intent to humiliate. The trial court had further noted that the alleged remarks contained 'an express, repeated invocation of caste names' and involved references to caste hierarchy and marriageability, while clarifying that its findings were confined to the tentative pre-arrest stage and did not amount to a determination of guilt.

The case stems from FIR No. 30/2026, registered at North Avenue Police Station. With the Delhi High Court now having reserved its verdict, the next judicial pronouncement will be closely watched both for its implications on Bharti's liberty and for the broader legal question of what constitutes intent under the SC/ST Act in social media speech.