Ajeet Bharti invoked caste-based purity: Court explains why pre-arrest bail denied

A Delhi court denied anticipatory bail to reservation reform activist and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in an SC-ST Act case. A detailed order explains what the court found offensive in Bharti's remarks against Nagina MP and Dalit leader Chandrashekhar Azad.

In Short

• FIR was lodged against Ajeet Bharti for allegedly abusing Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan
• The Delhi court on September 7 rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by Ajeet Bharti
• Court said Bharti invoked caste notions of purity, hierarchy; attracts SC/ST Act offence

A Delhi court denied anticipatory bail to reservation reform activist and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in an SC-ST Act on Monday (September 7). The court's detailed order, released on Wednesday, said Bharti prima facie invoked caste hierarchy, caste-based notions of purity and the alleged superiority of "upper" castes over "lower" castes in matters of marriage and lineage in his remarks against Dalit leader and Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan.

The Bar and Bench, a media outlet that focusses on legal matters, reported on Wednesday that Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts made the observations in his Monday order while rejecting Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, or the SC/ST Act.

"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 SC/ST community has to be something extra/something more/worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste," the Delhi Court observed, said th Bar and Bench report.

The case was filed against the 38-year-old reservation activist for his comments made in a YouTube live stream against Chandrashekhar Azad, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and is the chief of Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).

According to the Bar and Bench report, the court found that Bharti's assertion that Azad should first "make himself worthy" of marrying an upper-caste woman was a specific reference to caste and was prima facie humiliating.

The court observed that the statement raised the question of why a person who is fit to marry within an SC/ST community would have to be "something extra" or "something more" to be considered worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman.

On this basis, the court prima facie concluded that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act were attracted. The provision deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC/ST community with the intention of humiliating them in a place within public view.

The finding was significant because Section 18 of the SC/ST Act places a statutory bar on anticipatory bail when the provisions of the Act are prima facie attracted.

WHY WAS AJEET BHARTI BOOKED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SC/ST ACT

An FIR was registered against Ajeet Bharti at Delhi's North Avenue police station on August 23 following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), led by Chandrashekhar Azad.

Bharti was booked under provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The complaint concerned Bharti's YouTube live stream video titled SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.

According to the FIR lodged by the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party, Bharti was responding to a viewer who had suggested that he get his sister married to Chandrashekhar Azad, after which caste-based reservation would end.

The complaint alleged that Bharti responded with caste-based and abusive remarks, besides making objectionable comments about Azad and BR Ambedkar. It also alleged that the video contained sexually degrading references to women and threats.

The FIR alleged that Bharti referred to the "Dom" and "Chamar" castes while responding to the viewer and subsequently said that merely being a "Chamar and an MP" was not sufficient for marriage, adding that Azad would first have to make himself worthy of marrying a "Savarna (upper caste)" woman.

During the anticipatory bail proceedings on September 7, Ajeet Bharti's lawyer, Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not prima facie attracted.

According to the arguments recorded in the court order, Dehadrai contended that the complainant was neither present during the alleged incident nor personally insulted or intimidated. He also argued that no specific SC/ST individual had been insulted in public view.

The defence maintained that Bharti's comments were rhetorical and hypothetical and did not constitute a statement directed at any real or identified woman.

CASTE WAS THE CENTRAL TO THE RESPONSE, SAYS DELHI COURT

The Delhi court took a different prima facie view of the remarks. Judge Laler observed that Bharti's comments contained an "invocation of caste names" that was not merely a stray or quarrelsome reference but functioned as the organising basis of his response, Bar and Bench reported.

The court particularly focused on the reference to Azad having to become worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman. According to the order cited in the Bar and Bench report, this was not merely a general or abstract reference to caste but a statement that specifically attached a person's worthiness for marriage to his caste identity.

The court therefore held that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) were prima facie made out. Consequently, the statutory restriction under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prevented the court from granting Bharti anticipatory bail.

At the same time, the court did not indicate that Bharti's arrest was necessary for the investigation. Judge Laler observed that if the offences under the SC/ST Act were not involved, the court might have considered granting Bharti relief.

The court noted that the incident appeared to have been a spontaneous response to a comment and that custodial interrogation was not required. However, because the court found that the SC/ST Act provisions were prima facie attracted, the statutory bar on anticipatory bail became decisive. The court also made it clear that its observations were limited to deciding Bharti's anticipatory bail plea.

Judge Laler clarified that the order should not be treated as a final finding on Bharti's guilt or innocence, the truth of the allegations against him or the complete context of the video recording.

The detailed order therefore establishes the court's reasoning at the bail stage rather than deciding the merits of the criminal case.

- Ends