Court says prima facie offence is made out under SC/ST Act; statutory bar on pre-arrest bail applies
New Delhi, Sept 2026 : The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti's plea seeking anticipatory bail in a case concerning alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that a prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out against Bharti and that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the special legislation was attracted. The court consequently dismissed the plea as not maintainable. A detailed order is awaited.
Bharti had approached the High Court after the Patiala House Courts rejected his anticipatory bail application on September 7. The case relates to an FIR registered at North Avenue Police Station alleging that remarks made during an episode of Bharti's self-titled programme amounted to caste-based insult and humiliation.
The FIR was registered under provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act. The episode was uploaded on Bharti's verified social media account and YouTube on August 22. The allegations concern remarks made about Azad and other members of the Scheduled Caste community, as well as references to Dr BR Ambedkar.
The trial court had held that the material placed before it prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.
The court had also noted that the alleged comments repeatedly invoked caste references while discussing the marriageability of a sitting Member of Parliament. It observed that references to “upper” and “lower” caste hierarchy and marriage could, at the prima facie stage, indicate an intention to humiliate rather than amount to a stray or generic abusive remark.
The trial court also considered the fact that the content was published on a publicly accessible social-media platform and had reached a substantial audience. The complainant's counsel subsequently told the High Court that around 23,000 people had access to the content and that caste references were repeatedly made.
During the High Court proceedings on September 16, Justice Banerjee had questioned the Delhi Police on why Bharti had not been issued a notice and whether custodial interrogation was actually required. The court had also watched the video in question and remarked that Bharti, as a YouTube commentator, needed to be “circumspect” about his statements.
The Delhi Police told the court that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days earlier and therefore had not been in a position to issue a notice before then.
Bharti's counsel, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not satisfied. He submitted that the alleged remarks were not made with an intention to insult or humiliate Azad because of his caste identity.
Dehadrai also argued that the comments needed to be considered in the context in which they were made, including alleged social-media comments concerning Bharti's sister. According to the defence, Bharti had not targeted Azad because of his caste and an abusive statement by itself would not automatically constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless the statutory requirement of caste-based intent was established.
The prosecution and complainant opposed the plea, maintaining that the alleged remarks were directed at a particular caste and were made publicly through social media. They argued that the repeated caste references and the public accessibility of the material satisfied the requirements for invoking the SC/ST Act.
The High Court's ruling turned on the prima facie application of the SC/ST Act. Section 18 of the legislation bars anticipatory bail where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence under the Act. The Supreme Court has also previously upheld the statutory framework restoring this restriction, subject to judicial scrutiny of whether a prima facie offence is actually disclosed.
With the Delhi High Court finding that the threshold was met in Bharti's case, his plea for protection from arrest was rejected.
The case will now proceed in accordance with the criminal investigation and applicable legal procedures. The High Court's detailed order is expected to provide further reasons for its finding that the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act were prima facie established.
