The Delhi High Court on September 16, 2026 reserved its order on YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard the matter. The plea challenges the September 7 order of the trial court, which had declined Bharti’s request for protection from arrest.
Background
The case arises from a video published on Bharti’s social media platform titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.” An FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station on August 23, 2026, following a complaint concerning remarks allegedly made against Chandrashekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community.
The FIR invokes 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.
Bharti’s counsel, Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the disputed portion of the video had to be considered along with the preceding statements. He submitted that Bharti had responded to alleged provocation concerning his family and contended that the statutory requirements of the SC/ST Act were not established.
During the hearing, Justice Banerjee questioned whether custodial interrogation was actually required and also sought an explanation from the Delhi Police regarding the absence of notice to Bharti.
The Court also expressed concern over the language used in the video and objected when a transcript containing the disputed expressions was sought to be handed over.
“Please be aware of what you are doing. The words used are offensive. I have heard it and read it; that is why I don't want this in open court.”
The Bench further indicated that the Court’s consideration at this stage was confined to the material relevant to the allegations against Bharti, rather than statements allegedly made by others before his remarks.
Dehadrai maintained that the remarks should not be treated as having been made because of Chandrashekhar Azad’s caste identity. He argued that the context preceding the disputed portion was relevant to determining Bharti’s intention.
The Delhi Police opposed the plea, submitting that the material disclosed a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act. Counsel for the complainant also opposed anticipatory bail and relied on the allegations concerning the statements made on social media.
After hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court reserved its order on Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea.
No final decision granting or refusing anticipatory bail was pronounced on September 16, 2026.
-300x169.webp)
