Delhi HC says words used by Ajeet Bharti were offensive, reserves order on anticipatory bail plea

The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) case registered against him for his comments regarding Member of Parliament (MP) Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan.

During the hearing, Justice Saurabh Banerjee remarked that Bharti should have been circumspect in making the comments.

"All these facets, caste, programme etc...You can't come up to the level of expressing your opinion by naming. That is the only point that can come in problem with you...There are statutes which give special privileges which are defined then you need to be circumspect of what you are doing...I can say anything and everything in my court but outside..." the judge said.

The Court also questioned why no notice had been issued to the accused by the Delhi Police.

"You don't require custodial interrogation?" the Bench asked.

Delhi Police's counsel responded that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days back and thus was unable to issue him any notice earlier.

The Court also said that the words used by Bharti were offensive, while objecting to handing over of a transcript of his video on record.

"You cannot hand over the words used by him to a court of law. I will issue contempt notice to you. Phraseology used is not offensive according to you? Please be aware of what you are doing. It contains word which are...You can't hand over those things to the court of law. You should not, as a counsel, hand over this," Justice Banerjee said.

Bharti has challenged the trial court's order of September 7 that denied him the relief of 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 Chandrashekhar Azad and BR Ambedkar, used sexually degrading language about women and issued threats. 

However, Bharti has defended himself publicly, saying that his remarks were provoked by a degrading comment about his mother/sister on his video.

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

"One concern is that the impugned portion is a few lines but I am requesting that the Court hear the prior part as well," Dehadrai said.

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.

"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 counsel said.

However, the Court said that it has to only see whether there was a prima facie case at this stage.

"I have read your application. Today, a simpliciter notice is sufficient. For you to ask for a protection, I don't think it can be granted," the judge said.

The Court also said that it was not concerned with the statements that had allegedly provoked Bharti to make the objectionable comments.

"You have your angst, grievance, way of saying. That's a separate issue. What he [Chandrashekhar] has done or not done is a separate issue. What is the statement made by him or others is not a concern. This is an independent case. An MP or someone might have said 10 things, you may have said 10 things. I am only on this, what is the context? You have said it is out of context," it said.

Dehadrai 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.

Opposing the bail application, Delhi Police counsel told the Court that it was clear from the facts that Bharti had insulted a particular caste in his statements.

"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," she said.

Counsel representing the complainant said that Bharti had knowingly targeted a particular caste. He also said that since there is a prima facie case against Bharti, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

The counsel added that Bharti is a "habitual offender" and had earlier adversely commented about a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) also.

Bench objects to handing over of video transcript

During the hearing, when Dehadrai attempted to submit a transcript of the video, the Court took objection to the same, in view of the derogatory nature of Bharti's video. Dehadrai responded that he was only trying to assist the Court. He added that it was a practice to hand over the transcript. However, the Court said,

"Please argue on the basis of what you have. If you want to hand over something based on interpretation."

The judge added that he should not hand over offensive things to the Court.

"These are material on record. Why are you getting into this?" the Court said.

Dehadrai reiterated that he was only trying to assist "but this has gone into some other direction". At this, the Court said,

"The words used are offensive. I have heard it and read it that is why I don't want this in open court."

Dehadrai argued that he was not committing any contempt of court and urged the Bench to allow him to withdraw from the case.

"How? If my lord has any difficulty with me appearing, then I will withdraw. i withdraw from the matter right now. Somehow I try to assist and it always turns into something that...I apologise with folded hands. My lord wants to issue contempt because I am showing something to court? I will withdraw. I will engage a senior counsel to argue, I don't think I can assist. My lord has said contempt will be issued against me?," he said.

However, the Court said that Dehadrai should not take it to that level as he was only being asked not to submit the transcript of the video.

The counsel responded that he may not be able to assist when threatened with contempt proceedings.

The Court said that it was not stopping him from referring to the content.

"I am saying I have seen the video and the transcript. There is nothing against your or for you, as a counsel you have all the liberties and privileges," the judge said.

Dehadrai then resumed arguments on behalf of Bharti.