Appearing through counsel for anticipatory bail in an SC/ST Act case, the YouTube commentator told the Delhi High Court that the programme in question was itself centred on the subject of caste, that he regards himself as an anti-caste-discrimination activist, and that the remarks now complained of were a reaction, in a moment of provocation, to an offensive post about his married sister. These are submissions made at the bail stage; nothing has been decided, and the Court said it would first watch the video in chambers.
New Delhi: YouTuber Ajeet Bharti has told the Delhi High Court, while seeking anticipatory bail in a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, that the remarks attributed to him were made in a moment of provocation and were never intended to insult or demean any caste or section of society [Ajeet Bharti v. State].
The plea, arising from allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad, is being heard by Justice Saurabh Banerjee. Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai appeared for the petitioner.
The submissions
Opening his case, counsel described the petitioner as a YouTube commentator whose primary source of income comes from the short videos and podcasts he creates mainly for YouTube, some of which are also published as reels.
On the substance, counsel submitted that the petitioner has consistently spoken against caste discrimination and considers himself an anti-caste-discrimination activist. An offensive post, it was submitted, had been made about the petitioner’s married sister, and it was in that moment of provocation and reaction that he made the remarks now being complained of.
Counsel maintained that the petitioner’s intention was never to insult or demean any caste or any section of society, and that the programme itself was centred on the issue of caste. He told the Court he would place the full context of the broadcast before it.
The Court to view the video
The Court indicated that it would watch the allegedly objectionable video in chambers before proceeding further, to which counsel agreed.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the present case was not an isolated instance, contending that several FIRs had already been registered against the petitioner over similar conduct and that he had commented on such issues repeatedly, characterising these as deliberate acts rather than accidental remarks. That submission, like those of the petitioner, is a contention at the bail stage and has not been adjudicated.
Arguments were to resume later in the day.
ALSO READ: Ajeet Bharti Moves Delhi Court For Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Act Case Over Video
The context
The petitioner had earlier moved the trial court for anticipatory bail, which was refused, following which he approached the High Court. The present hearing is on that plea.
The SC/ST Act creates specific offences relating to the intentional insult or intimidation of members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and Section 18 of the Act restricts the availability of anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under the Act is made out, which is part of what makes such pleas contested. Whether the remarks fall within the Act, and whether the statutory bar applies, are questions the Court will consider once it has seen the material. Nothing in the proceedings so far amounts to a finding on either the offence or the defence, and the petitioner is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Case Title: Ajeet Bharti v. State
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Appearing: Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for the petitioner
Status: Anticipatory bail plea part-heard. Court to view the video in chambers. Submissions of both sides untested; no finding recorded.