'You Need To Be Circumspect': Delhi High Court Orally Tells Ajeet Bharti, Will Watch Impugned Video In SC/ST Act Case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (September 16) orally remarked that if Ajeet Bharti has designated himself as a Youtube commentator then he needs to be "circumspect" of what he is doing.

The Court was hearing his plea for anticipatory bail in a Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act case. 

Bharti had moved the high court, after the trial court rejected his plea observing that his remarks concerning the caste and marriageability of a sitting Member of Parliament prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act, adding that he invoked 'Upper' and 'Lower' caste hierarchy in marriage which prima facie showed an intent to humiliate. 

While passing over the matter for 2:30 pm in order to watch the impugned video–wherein Bharti purportedly made certain comments–in chambers, Justice Saurabh Banerjee orally said to the petitioner's counsel:

"There is no YouTube commentator. There is a YouTuber. You have designated yourself (this tag). You should be aware of what you are, where you are and when you are. If you are not aware then, you should not be there.

Two, there is no written prescribed norm. You are what you have created yourself. You dont have a degree. You might as well know what you are doing. You cannot, under these caste and programs come upto a level of expressing your opinion in naming. If you want to contend that i should be seeing whole video, it has to be…nothing can be or should be taken out of context, yes. But there are statutes which are giving special privileges which are defined then you need to be circumspect of what you are doing. You cannot enter into a common domain and express yourself".

At the outset, petitioner's counsel advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai said that petitioner is a YouTube commentator and his "bread and butter" was that he posts "political conversations". Dehadrai said that the petitioner's primary source of income comes from such videos and podcasts.

He further said the petitioner's intention was never to denigrate any caste. 

The case arose from an episode of Bharti's self-titled programme, uploaded on his verified social media account and YouTube on August 22, which allegedly contained casteist, derogatory and humiliating remarks concerning members of the Scheduled Caste community, Chandra Shekhar Azad (a sitting MP from Nagina) and Dr BR Ambedkar.

The specific remarks were made in response to a social-media comment concerning Bharti's sister's alleged marriage to the MP.

Denying anticipatory bail to Bharti, the trial court judge had noted that the material placed on record showed that Bharti's remarks repeatedly invoked caste names while discussing the marriageability of the named MP.

The Court had also taken note of the statement that it was not sufficient for the person to be a “Chamar and an MP” for a marriage to be arranged and that the MP would first have to “make himself worthy” to seek the hand of a woman from a “Savarna” family. It held that this could not, at the prima facie stage, be characterised as merely generic abuse or a stray caste reference.

“It is language that invokes caste hierarchy and marriageability directly, touching the very notion identified in Shajan Skaria (paragraph 62) as the paradigm of "intent to humiliate" under Section 3(1)(r): caste-based notions of purity and the assumed superiority of "upper" over "lower" castes in matters of alliance and lineage,” the Court had said.

It had added that the assertion that the MP in question 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 or something more or worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste.

Bharti has publicly defended himself saying that he did not make any casteist remarks in his video but was responding to offensive comments against his mother/sister.

The FIR has been lodged under provisions of the SC/ST Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) (aggravated criminal intimidation) BNS as well as Information Technology Act.

Case Title: Ajeet Bharti v. State