The Delhi high court on Monday declined to grant YouTuber Ajeet Bharti immediate protection from arrest in a case registered under the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, or SC/ST Act, over alleged remarks against parliamentarian and Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram) leader Chandrashekhar Azad.
“Day after tomorrow [Wednesday], we will see,” Justice Saurabh Banerjee told Bharti’s counsel as he urged interim protection from arrest. Justice Banerjee said this while the court was considering adjourning a plea challenging a lower court’s September 7 order, rejecting Bharti’s anticipatory bail for Wednesday in view of non-availability of the complete copy of the First Information Report (FIR). The matter would be heard next on Wednesday.
Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram)’s Delhi chief filed a case against Bharti over allegedly caste-based and abusive language against Azad and Dalit icon Bhimrao Ambedkar. The FIR alleged that Bharti used sexually degrading language against women and issued threats.
The lower court rejected Bharti’s anticipatory bail, observing that the language allegedly used in a YouTube video invoked caste hierarchy, notions of caste-based purity, and the perceived superiority of “upper” castes over “lower” castes in matters of marriage and lineage. It observed that Bharti’s statement that Azad should make himself “worthy” of marrying an upper-caste woman constituted a specific caste reference and was prima facie humiliating.
The lower court prima facie found that Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC/ST community with intent to humiliate in a place within public view, was attracted. It held that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which restricts anticipatory bail in cases attracting the Act, would apply.
{{/usCountry}}The lower court prima facie found that Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC/ST community with intent to humiliate in a place within public view, was attracted. It held that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, which restricts anticipatory bail in cases attracting the Act, would apply.
{{/usCountry}}