Ajeet Bharti invoked caste superiority with the aim to humiliate Chandrashekhar Azad: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that remarks made by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti against Dalit leader and Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad amounted to abuse using caste names and were intended to humiliate him.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee returned the prima facie finding while denying Bharti anticipatory bail in the case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act].

The judge examined the video and its transcript containing the offending remarks by Bharti.

The Court said that the YouTuber repeatedly invoked caste identity and ideas of caste superiority and that his statement cannot be said to be general or reckless/stray remarks.

"They were clear references to caste, and explicit invocation of ideas of caste superiority prevalent in society, that too, with reference to the institution of marriage, which also represents age old notions of the hierarchy of the castes," the Court said.

Justice Banerjee referred to Bharti's remark that Azad would have to “make himself worthy enough” to seek the hand of a “savarna” woman and said the remark “otherised” Azad, suggesting caste hierarchy and superiority.

It also rejected the argument that the remarks were made by Bharti only after provocation by someone online.

"In any event, the same cannot act as a shield for the applicant to escape his doings, that too, whence he was well-aware of what he was saying/ doing. Be that as it may, the said ‘provocation’, if any, was not by the named individual. It is also nowhere the case of the applicant that he has subsequently issued any clarification/ explanation/ retraction/ apologies," the Court added.

Bharti approached the High Court against the trial court's order of September 7 that denied him anticipatory bail.

A first information report (FIR) was registered against him at Delhi's North Avenue Police Station on August 23 under the SC/ST Act, along with 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 a video titled SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti published on Bharti's social media handle.

As per the complaint, Bharti used caste-based and abusive language, made objectionable remarks against Dalit leader and MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan and Dr. BR Ambedkar, used sexually degrading language about women and issued threats. 

Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, representing Bharti, submitted that Bharti is against caste discrimination.

Dehadrai argued that provisions of the SC/ST Act were not made out in the case. He added that the YouTuber had expressed a nuanced view on the subject of reservation.

He said that Bharti had not targeted Chandrashekhar Azad because of his caste identity. He was provoked by comments made against his sister.

"My sister was abused on 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 sine qua non is that," he said.

After considering the case, the High Court ruled that a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were made out against Bharti.

It also said that the social media platform constituted a place “within public view” under the SC/ST Act.

"Therefore, in today’s age when the Internet is the fastest mode of dissemination of anything, the concerned video uploaded on the world wide web, which is a public digital platform with open and easy access to one and all across the Globe, plays a vital role as it is freely available/ accessible over the Internet at all times, and can be seen, heard, consumed, engaged with and/ or reshared by anyone at any time of their choosing. Under such a scenario, there is no requirement for physical presence of the victim like the named individual herein, as the same is accessible without any fetters," the Court said.

Ultimately, it concluded that given the bar under Sections 18/ 18A(2) SC/ ST Act and the legal position, Bharti's anticipatory bail plea is not maintainable.

Therefore, the Court dismissed it.

Advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai, Pratyush Prasanna, Yashvi Aswani, Ram Pravesh Dubey and Rishabh Chauhan represented Ajeet Bharti.

APP Meenakshi Dahiya with advocates Ashish Priya, Kirti Gupta, Urmila Saluja, Mukesh Kumar Pand, Upasna Bakshi, Sourav Suman and Divya represented the State.

Advocates Mohan Shyam Arya, Abhishek Suman, Pradeep Kumar, Satish Kumar, Mukesh Gautam, Umar Khan, Surya Pratap Deva, Chandra Gupta and Sourabh Rai represented the complainant.

[Read Judgment]