Full Breakdown
Delhi High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for YouTuber Ajeet Bharti
By Drooid · · How we work
Background of the SC/ST Act Complaint
A first-information report was lodged at Delhi’s North Avenue police station after a written complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi state president of the Azad Samaj Party. The FIR alleges that YouTuber Ajeet Bharti made caste-based, abusive statements about MP Chandrashekhar Azad, members of the Scheduled Caste community and Dr B.R. Ambedkar during a livestream on 22 August 2026. The complaint invokes the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Information Technology Act 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
Timeline of Legal Proceedings
- 21 Aug 2026 – Protest at Jantar Mantar demanded reservation quotas based on economic criteria.
- 23 Aug 2026 – FIR formally registered.
- 7 Sept 2026 – Delhi trial court rejected Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea, citing prima-facie evidence under the SC/ST Act.
- 16 Sept 2026 – Delhi High Court heard arguments.
- 24 Sept 2026 – Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed the bail petition, noting a prima-facie case and the statutory bar on anticipatory bail. A detailed order is pending.
Key Legal Provisions and Statistics
- The FIR cites Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, which criminalize intentional insult and abusive language toward Scheduled Caste or Tribe members.
- Section 18 of the Act prohibits anticipatory bail when any of those sections are prima-facie established.
- The livestream had roughly 23,100 views at the time of the complaint.
- The case also falls under Section 67 of the IT Act (offensive online content) and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (promoting enmity and criminal intimidation).
Official Positions of the Court, Police, and Parties
- Delhi High Court – Justice Banerjee found the material disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) and applied the statutory bail bar.
- Delhi Police – Prosecutors argued the remarks were public, caste-specific insults satisfying the SC/ST Act criteria.
- Azad’s Representatives – Described the statements as intentional and derogatory.
- Bharti’s Counsel (Adv. Jai Anant Dehadrai) – Asserted the comments were a reaction to provocation involving Bharti’s sister and that no caste slur was used.
Potential Implications for Free Speech and Caste-Related Law
The dismissal highlights the court’s readiness to enforce the statutory bail bar for alleged caste-based insults, even in online contexts. Analysts suggest the ruling may tighten bail thresholds for similar cases, while civil-rights observers warn of possible constraints on free expression for activists. The forthcoming detailed order will clarify the court’s reasoning and could set precedent for future bail applications under the SC/ST Act.
