Click the Play button to listen to article

While denying anticipatory bail to YouTuber and social media commentator Ajeet Bharti, a Delhi Court has observed that his remarks concerning the caste and marriageability of a sitting Member of Parliament prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts made the observation while rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by Bharti in a SC/ST Act case.

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 judge 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 also took 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 said.

It 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.

"On a prima facie reading, and without in any manner adjudicating upon its truth, correctness, or the full context in which it was said — which the applicant remains at liberty to place before the Investigating Agency and the Trial Court - this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are prima facie disclosed,” the Court said.

Further, the Court observed that given that the impugned episode has garnered upwards of 23,000 views on a publicly accessible platform, it was not persuaded by the argument that the "public view" ingredient can be treated as plainly absent. The judge said that the question is not conclusively settled on the material available and remains open for fuller consideration at trial.

“….this Court finds that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie disclosed on the material on record, and that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 accordingly precludes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application is accordingly dismissed,” the judge said.

The Court however clarified that Bharti can renew his prayer or seek any other remedy as may be available in law, should circumstances change.

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: STATE OF DELHI versus AJEET BHARTI

Tags: