The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision regarding the anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti. This application pertains to a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, following alleged derogatory remarks made by Bharti about Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.

Court Proceedings and Arguments Presented

During the hearing, Justice Saurabh Banerjee remarked that Bharti ought to have exercised greater caution in his statements, particularly given the significance of the laws in question. The court also sought clarity from the Delhi Police regarding their failure to issue a notice to Bharti, questioning whether his custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage.

The police counsel elaborated that the investigating officer had only acquired Bharti’s address two days prior, which precluded the issuance of a notice. Furthermore, the court expressed disapproval of specific language used in the transcripts of Bharti’s remarks, categorising it as offensive.

Bharti’s legal representative, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, contended that the criteria for an offence under the SC/ST Act had not been satisfied. He emphasised that a statement considered abusive alone does not automatically translate into a criminal offence under the Act. Dehadrai referred to previous Supreme Court rulings to bolster his argument.

He pointed out that Bharti had opposed caste discrimination and had articulated his stance concerning reservation policies. Dehadrai urged the court to evaluate Bharti’s remarks within the wider context of the video, rather than focusing solely on the sections deemed objectionable.

Context of the FIR and Background of the Case

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at North Avenue Police Station on August 23, following a complaint from Balakram Bauddh, who is the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). The complaint accuses Bharti of making caste-related and abusive statements about Chandrashekhar Azad and BR Ambedkar, as well as other remarks deemed objectionable.

Bharti has refuted these allegations and, through his counsel, has requested that his remarks be viewed in light of prior comments allegedly directed towards his family members. The case highlights complexities surrounding free speech and allegations of caste-based offences.

Following the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by a Patiala House court on September 7, Bharti took his case to the High Court. The trial court had concluded that the evidence presented initially suggested an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, noting that the restriction outlined in Section 18 was applicable.

The legal proceedings have underscored the challenges involved in navigating allegations that intertwine social media commentary with the rigorous legal standards set by the SC/ST Act. The forthcoming decision by the Delhi High Court will address the critical questions regarding Bharti’s bail status amidst these ongoing allegations.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share