The afternoon hearing turned tense when the Court told counsel not to hand around or repeat the allegedly offensive material, saying it had already seen the video and read the transcript. Counsel, taking the exchange as a suggestion of contempt, offered to withdraw; the Court said there was nothing personal and asked him to argue on merits. At the end, the Court declined interim protection, issued notice, and reserved its order.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after declining to grant interim protection at this stage and issuing notice to the prosecution [Ajeet Bharti v. State].
Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard the plea, which arises from allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad. Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai appeared for the petitioner.
The exchange over the material
When the matter resumed in the afternoon and counsel sought to hand up an extract of the remarks, the Court objected to the manner in which the material was being placed and circulated. It told counsel that the words used were offensive, that it had already heard and read them, and that there was accordingly no need to reproduce or circulate them in open court.
Counsel maintained that he was only trying to assist the Court and that the material was already part of the judicial record. The Court responded that a court has its own privileges and powers and that offensive material already on record need not be circulated afresh, and asked counsel to identify the relevant page numbers and lines from the existing record rather than file a separate extract.
The exchange briefly escalated. Counsel, indicating that he understood the Court to be raising the prospect of contempt, said that in that event he did not think he could continue to appear and would engage senior counsel, and apologised with folded hands. The Court asked him not to take the matter to that level, clarifying that there was nothing personal, that counsel was free to rely on the material and to argue the case, and that it was only declining to have fresh extracts filed or the language repeated aloud. It added the observation, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Counsel then proceeded with his arguments.
No interim protection; notice issued
On the relief sought, the Court indicated that at the stage of anticipatory bail it had to examine the prima facie basis of the case, that having read the application it considered a simple notice sufficient for the day, and that it was not inclined to grant interim protection at this stage. It framed the question it wished the prosecution to answer as whether the two portions of the remarks, by themselves, are sufficient to attract the SC/ST Act.
The Court also asked the Delhi Police how many notices had so far been issued to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner said that not a single notice had been served. The prosecutor explained that the FIR had been registered in August 2026 and that the investigating officer had obtained the petitioner’s address only two days earlier, which was why no notice had been issued until then.
After hearing both sides, the Court reserved its order.
The competing positions in brief
The prosecution submitted that three elements prima facie attracted the Act: that the remarks were insulting towards a particular caste, that they were made publicly on social media, and that the accused does not belong to the same community. The complainant’s counsel added that the programme was centred on caste and that specific caste names were used, which went to the question of intention, and contended that the statutory bar on anticipatory bail therefore applied.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that mere use of offensive language does not by itself attract the Act, that the insult must be intentional and tied to caste identity, and that the bar under Section 18 does not operate where the basic ingredients of the offence are not prima facie made out. Those submissions are the subject of a separate report. All of it remains at the stage of argument; the Court has recorded no finding.
ALSO READ: Ajeet Bharti Moves Delhi Court For Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Act Case Over Video
Why it matters
Two things of significance happened in the afternoon, and they are best kept distinct. The first is procedural and immediate: the Court has, for now, refused interim protection and issued notice, which means the petitioner is without a shield against arrest until the reserved order is delivered, though the prosecution’s own position is that no notice has yet been served and the investigation is at an early stage. The framing of the question, whether the two identified portions by themselves attract the Act, tells the parties precisely what the Court will decide.
The second is the exchange over the material, which is a reminder of a boundary that applies to everyone in a courtroom, including counsel. A court is entitled to control what is circulated and read aloud in open court, particularly where it regards the content as offensive and has already taken it on record; that is a matter of the court’s control over its own proceedings, not a comment on the strength of either side’s case. The Court was careful to say as much, disclaiming anything personal and inviting counsel to argue on merits, which is why the episode is best read as a dispute about courtroom conduct rather than a ruling on the bail plea.
Nothing has been decided. The order is reserved, the submissions of all sides are untested, 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: Order reserved. Interim protection declined at this stage; notice issued. No finding recorded; presumption of innocence applies.