Ajeet Bharti invoked caste notions of purity, hierarchy; prima facie attracts SC/ST Act offence: Delhi court

A Delhi court has observed that the language used by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in his video invoked caste hierarchy, caste-based notions of purity and the assumed superiority of "upper" over "lower" castes in matters of marriage and lineage.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts made the prima facie observation in September 7 order while denying anticipatory bail to Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act]. 

The case arose from Bharti’s comments in a YouTube video about Member of Parliament (MP) Chandrashekhar Azad who belongs to one of the scheduled caste communities.

Judge Laler said that Bharti’s assertion that Azad should make himself worthy of marrying an upper-caste girl is a specific reference to caste and is humiliating. 

“The assertion that the said MP should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl, is a specific reference to caste and humiliating as to why a person fit to be married to anyone in SC/ST community has to be something extra/something more/worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste,” the Court observed.

The Court prima facie found that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act (humiliate, insult or use caste-based slurs against members of SC/ST in public view) were attracted.

Therefore, the statutory bar under Section 18, which bars courts from granting anticipatory bail in such cases, would apply, the Court concluded.

However, the Court observed that had the offences under the SC/ST Act not been involved, it might have considered granting relief to Bharti, as the incident appeared to have been spontaneous in response to a comment and custodial interrogation was not required.

Judge Laler also clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to adjudicating the anticipatory bail plea and did not amount to any finding on Bharti’s guilt or innocence, the truth of the allegations, or the complete context of the recording.

Bharti was booked in a first information report (FIR) registered on August 23 under the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The complaint was filed by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), over Bharti’s video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti”.

The complaint alleged that Bharti used caste-based and abusive language, made objectionable remarks about Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad and BR Ambedkar, used sexually degrading language against women and issued threats.

According to the FIR, Bharti was responding to a viewer who suggested that he get his sister married to Azad, after which caste-based reservation would end.

Bharti allegedly said that if the viewer had married his sister or mother into the “Dom” or “Chamar” caste, the comparison might hold.

He further said that merely being “a Chamar and an MP” was not enough for marriage and that Azad would first have to “make himself worthy” of marrying a “Savarna” woman.

Appearing for Bharti, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai argued that Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were not prima facie attracted as the complainant was neither present nor personally insulted or intimidated, and no identified SC/ST member was shown to have been insulted in public view.

He submitted that the remarks were rhetorical and hypothetical and not a statement about any real or identified woman.

Dehadrai further argued that the allegations could only be assessed after considering the complete, unedited recording and its context, which could not be presumed against Bharti at the pre-arrest stage.

After considering the case, the Court said that Bharti’s comments contain “invocation of caste names, not as a stray or quarrelsome aside but as the organising device” of his response. 

It rejected his anticipatory bail plea after concluding that the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(r) were made out against Bharti.

Advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai, Pratyush Prasanna, Yashvi Ashwani, Rivanshu, Snigdha Singh, Vatan Tripathi, Ram Pravesh Dubey, Apurva Chatterjee and Rishabh Chauhan appeared for Ajeet Bharti.

The complainant was represented by advocates Mohan Shyam Arya, Abhishek Suman, Suraj Chaudhary, Prakash Yadav, PK Dagar, Bal Kishan, Sanjiv Singh, Chand Alam, Shamsher Singh, Buddh Ghosh, Umar Khan, Agam Jain, Chandra Gupt, Satish Kumar, Mukesh Gautam, Saurabh Rai, Surya Pratap Deva and Lalit Kumar.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mukul Kumar represented the State.