The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to social-media commentator Ajeet Bharti in an SC/ST Atrocities Act case over a video allegedly containing caste-based slurs aimed at MP Chandrashekhar Azad, holding that a prima facie case of caste-based humiliation is made out and that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the Act applies.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by social-media commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), holding that a prima facie case of intentional caste-based humiliation under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act is made out, and that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act renders the application not maintainable [Ajeet Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another].
Justice Saurabh Banerjee pronounced the judgment on an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The findings are prima facie and for the limited purpose of deciding the bail plea; the applicant is presumed innocent, the allegations are untested, and the Court expressly clarified that its observations shall have no bearing on the overall proceedings.
The case
The FIR was registered at Police Station North Avenue on the complaint of the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party. According to the complaint, the applicant had uploaded and circulated an audio-visual video through his social-media presence which, at the time of the FIR, had around 23,100 views, and which allegedly contained repeated caste-based abuse, caste slurs and derogatory remarks directed particularly at Chandrashekhar Azad, the Member of Parliament from Nagina, Uttar Pradesh, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, and against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and members of the SC and ST communities at large, with the intent, it was alleged, to humiliate and to promote caste-based hatred and ill-will. (LawChakra is not reproducing the slurs or the offending remarks.) The FIR was registered under 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.
The bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act
The Court began with the statutory framework. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act excludes the application of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (anticipatory bail) to offences under the Act, and Section 18A(2) reinforces that bar “notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.” Since Section 438 CrPC is pari materia to Section 482 BNSS, the Court held, that bar applies with equal force to an anticipatory bail application under the BNSS.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, which, after analysing a long line of precedent, explained the rationale for the bar: the legislature considered that the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be available for offences under the Act, given the social conditions that give rise to such offences and the apprehension that perpetrators might threaten or intimidate victims and obstruct the prosecution. At the same time, Shajan Skaria clarified that the bar operates only where a prima facie case under the Act is made out; if the material does not disclose the commission of an offence under the Act, the bar on anticipatory bail is not attracted. The question, therefore, was whether such a prima facie case existed here.
‘Intent to humiliate’: the Section 3(1)(r) test
Examining the contents of the video, the Court found that the applicant had, both directly and indirectly, attached caste names and slurs to the named MP, and had invoked notions of caste hierarchy and “upper-caste” superiority against him, including in the context of marriage. Without reproducing the offending words, the Court’s analysis was that the remarks were not “general or reckless/ stray,” but were “clear references to caste, and explicit invocation of ideas of caste superiority prevalent in society.”
The Court applied the test from Shajan Skaria on the meaning of “with intent to humiliate” in Section 3(1)(r):
“Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the ‘upper castes’ over the ‘lower castes/untouchables’… that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act.”
On that touchstone, the Court held that the remarks, being repeated caste references aimed at a member of the SC community, coupled with an explicit invocation of caste superiority in the context of marriage, which “represents age old notions of the hierarchy of the castes,” fell within the type of caste-based humiliation the Act targets. It accordingly held that a case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) was prima facie made out, at least for the purpose of deciding the bail application.
‘Provocation’ argument rejected
The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the remarks had been made only after online provocation, holding it to be without merit and, in any event, no shield, since the applicant was well aware of what he was saying, the alleged provocation was not by the named individual, and it was nowhere the applicant’s case that he had subsequently issued any clarification, retraction or apology. Having found a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) made out, the Court held that it need not, at this stage, examine the other invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act, the IT Act and the BNS.
Given the prima facie case and the statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18A(2), the Court held the anticipatory bail application to be not maintainable, and dismissed it.
Why the order matters
The order is a significant application of the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the SC/ST Act’s anticipatory-bail bar to caste-based content circulated on social media. It confirms that the bar under Sections 18 and 18A(2) is not absolute in the sense of applying to every FIR merely invoking the Act, but is triggered once a court, on the material, finds a prima facie case under the Act to exist, and that where such a case is made out, an anticipatory bail application, whether under Section 438 CrPC or Section 482 BNSS, is not maintainable. The decision illustrates how courts undertake that prima facie assessment even at the pre-arrest-bail stage.
The judgment is also notable for the way it applies the Shajan Skaria “intent to humiliate” standard: a caste-based insult attracts Section 3(1)(r) not merely because the target belongs to a Scheduled Caste, but where the insult draws on, or reinforces, notions of caste hierarchy and superiority. The case sits at the sensitive intersection of free expression and the protection the SC/ST Act affords against caste-based humiliation, a balance courts are increasingly called upon to strike as such disputes migrate to online and social-media platforms. Nothing in the order determines the applicant’s guilt; the findings are prima facie and confined to the bail question, and the applicant remains free to pursue other remedies available in law, with the trial, if the matter proceeds, to decide the allegations on their merits.
Case Title: Ajeet Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another [Bail Appln. 3808/2026]
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: September 24, 2026