Ajeet Bharti Prima Facie Made Caste-Based Abuses, Derogatory Remarks To Embarrass MP Chandrashekhar Azad: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday observed that prima facie, commentator Ajeet Bharti made caste-based abuses or slurs and derogatory remarks against Azad Samaj Party leader and Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, aimed at causing embarrassment, humiliation and dishonour to him.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observations while dismissing Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in a case registered under various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Court said that prima facie, the FIR clearly disclosed that Bharti abused Azad using caste-names or slurs, which were with a view to humiliate the MP within the purview of Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) SC/ST Act.

The Court said that the repeated references to caste-names or caste slurs, directly and indirectly aimed at Azad, who is a member of SC community, made it clear that the remarks made were not general or reckless or stray.

“They (remarks) 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….,” it said.

The FIR was registered at Police Station North Avenue on a complaint by the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party. It alleged that Bharti had uploaded and circulated an audio-visual programme titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More/Saptahik Bakaiti” on his social media and digital platforms.

The video had approximately 23,100 views when the FIR was registered and allegedly contained caste-based abuses and derogatory remarks directed at Chandrashekhar Azad, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

The Court examined the relevant portions of the video in Chambers, along with its transcript. It noted that Bharti's counsel had admitted that Bharti did not belong to an SC/ST community and that, considering the public nature of the social media platform and the wide audience which viewed the video, its publication constituted an incident “within public view”.

After viewing the video, the Court prima facie found that Bharti had made caste-based abuses, caste names/slurs and derogatory remarks aimed at causing embarrassment, humiliation and dishonour to Azad and affecting his dignity.

While doing so, Justice Banerjee examined statements in which Azad was repeatedly identified with caste names or slurs.

The Court observed that the term “savarna”, as admitted by Bharti's counsel, had been used to refer to so-called “upper-caste” individuals.

“This term itself, as admitted in Court by learned counsel for the applicant, has been used by the applicant to refer to the so-called 'upper-caste' individuals, thereby otherising the named individual and suggesting invocation of caste hierarchy and superiority against him in a glaring manner,” the Court observed.

Further, the Court noted that Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the SC/ST Act bar the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the statute.

However, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, it observed that the bar would not apply where, on a prima facie reading of the FIR, the ingredients of an offence under the Act are not made out.

Holding that the FIR prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against Bharti, it dismissed his petition.

The Court also rejected Bharti's contention that the remarks were made after he was provoked by someone online.

It held that such alleged provocation could not act as a shield against his conduct, particularly since the alleged provocation had not come from Azad.

“Be that as it may, the said 'provocation', if any, was not by the named individual (Azad). It is also nowhere the case of the applicant (Bharti) that he has subsequently issued any clarification/ explanation/ retraction/ apologies,” the Court said.

Since a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was made out, the Court held that the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the enactment applied in the case and that Bharti's anticipatory bail application was not maintainable.

In its order, the Court also observed that 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 over the Internet at all times, and can be seen, heard, consumed, engaged with and 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,” it said.

Bharti challenged the trial court's rejection of his anticipatory bail application in connection with an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks against Scheduled Caste members, including Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar.

Bharti 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.

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 Trial Court held 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.

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

Click here to read order