Delhi HC denies pre-arrest bail to quota activist Ajeet Bharti in SC/ST Act case

The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti over his remarks on MP Chandrashekhar Azad in an SC/ST Act case. The quota-reforms activist said that his sister was abused on social media and he had responded to that.

In Short

• Court said Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were prima facie attracted
• Sessions court earlier cited caste hierarchy and purity notions in marriage
• Police said the remarks insulted a specific caste on social media

The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber and reservation-reform activist Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over his remarks concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act were prima facie made out and that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail therefore applied. The court dismissed Bharti's petition as not maintainable, with a detailed order awaited, reported legal news outlet, Bar and Bench.

The High Court order is the second setback to Bharti as he attempted to secure protection from arrest.

On September 7, Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler had rejected his anticipatory bail plea, observing at the prima facie stage that his remarks invoked caste hierarchy and caste-based notions of purity in the context of marriage. The Delhi sessions court, however, made clear that these observations were confined to deciding the bail application and were not findings on Bharti's guilt or innocence.

Thirty-eight-year-old Bharti has emerged as one of the prominent faces seeking reforms in India's caste-based reservation framework and opposing the UGC's now-stayed equity regulations. He attended and addressed the August 21 Jantar Mantar mobilisation of the "upper-castes" and called for a government white paper evaluating reservations, sub-categorisation within quotas and application of the creamy-layer principle.

Bharti's position, however, diverged from that of NEET aspirant Harsh Dubey, who led the Reservation Reform Andolan and subsequently entered talks with BJP leaders. After Dubey and other activists met Union Minister JP Nadda, Bharti dismissed the outreach as a "pretence of negotiation", alleged that the BJP was treating Dubey as its "planted" leader and complained that the memorandum submitted at the meeting with union ministers JN Nadda and Jitendra Singh did not even contain the word "reservation".

WHY HAS THE HIGH COURT DENIED AJEET BHARTI BAIL?

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected Bharti's challenge to the sessions court order. Justice Saurabh Banerjee said a prima facie offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was made out. Section 3(1)(r) deals with intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate a member of an SC/ST community, while Section 3(1)(s) concerns abusing a member of an SC/ST community by caste name, reported Bar and Bench.

With the provisions prima facie attracted, the court held that the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail applied.

Bharti's lawyer, Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that Bharti was against caste discrimination and that the remarks had not targeted Azad because of his caste.

"My sister was abused on social media, I responded to that. Some people may not like it, but my intention was not to malign... I have not even named Azad's caste. The sine qua non is that," Dehadrai submitted Bharti as saying.

Delhi Police opposed the plea, arguing that the statements insulted a particular caste and were made publicly on social media.

WHAT IS THE CASE AGAINST AJEET BHARTI?

The controversy dates to Bharti's August 22 YouTube livestream, "SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti", a day after the Jantar Mantar reservation protest.

The FIR was registered at Delhi's North Avenue police station on August 23 following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State president of Chandrashekhar Azad's Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). Bharti was booked under the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The dispute arose after a viewer suggested during Bharti's livestream that his sister should marry Chandrashekhar Azad and that reservation would then end. Bharti responded to the comment, and portions of that response referring to caste and Azad became the basis of the complaint.

Bharti had said, "Chandrashekhar will have to make himself worthy enough to ask for the hand of a daughter of any Savarna [General category] individual."

Bharti has maintained that he was reacting to a provocative and degrading comment concerning his family and denied that his remarks were motivated by caste prejudice.

WHAT DID THE SESSIONS COURT SAY REJECTING AJEET BHARTI'S BAIL PLEA?

The sessions court took a different prima facie view of Bharti's plea. It particularly examined Bharti's assertion that Azad would have to make himself "worthy" of marrying an upper-caste woman.

"The assertion that the said MP [Chandrashekhar Azad] 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 the SC/ST community has to be something extra/something more/worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste," the court observed.

Bharti subsequently challenged that interpretation and moved the High Court. After the sessions court ruling, he said, "But since the Modi Act has been imposed, now they have taken offence to my statement 'he will have to be worthy' by claiming that I said it out of caste bias, that Ravan [Chandrashekhar Azad] would have to become worthy for any girl."

"In other words, worthiness is no longer about economics, not about beauty or virtues, not about education, but something else entirely," he added.

The High Court has now declined to give Bharti protection from arrest as well. Its detailed order, which could elaborate on why it found the SC/ST Act provisions prima facie applicable, is awaited.

- Ends