The Court’s oral observations went to the responsibility that comes with the role. A YouTube commentator, the judge said, has created the role for himself and may have no formal qualification or rulebook, which makes it all the more important to understand the impact of what he says; there is a line about personally naming someone that must not be crossed; and where a statute creates special protections, one cannot treat that area like ordinary public debate. These are remarks in the course of a bail hearing, not findings, and the Court is yet to decide the plea.
New Delhi: Hearing the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Delhi High Court has orally observed that a person who describes himself as a YouTube commentator is expected to understand the platform he uses, the context in which he speaks, and the impact of what he says [Ajeet Bharti v. State].
Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observations while hearing the plea, which arises from allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad.
On the responsibility of a commentator
The Court’s central theme was that the freedom to comment carries a corresponding responsibility. Once a person describes himself as a YouTube commentator, the judge observed, he is expected to understand who he is, the platform he is using, the context in which he is speaking, and the impact of what he says; and if he is not conscious of these responsibilities, he should not be acting as a YouTuber or commentator in the first place.
The judge acknowledged that there may be no formal written rulebook governing a YouTube commentator, and that the petitioner had essentially created the role for himself and might have no specific professional qualification for it. But that, the Court observed, made it all the more important to understand what one is doing and the responsibility that comes with it.
On naming a person, and on protected statutes
Turning to the specific conduct alleged, the Court observed that in podcasts or similar programmes there is a line about which a commentator needs to be careful: one cannot simply express an opinion by personally naming someone in a manner that may cross legal limits. That, the Court indicated, was the aspect that could create difficulty for the petitioner.
The judge went on to underline the significance of the particular statute invoked. Where a specific statute like the SC/ST Act creates special protections, the Court observed, one has to be especially careful and circumspect about what one says, and cannot treat such a protected area like any ordinary public debate and express oneself without regard to those statutory safeguards.
The Court indicated that it would view the allegedly objectionable video in chambers before proceeding further. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter was not an isolated instance, contending that several FIRs had already been registered against the petitioner over similar conduct. 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
Why it matters
Oral observations from the Bench are not the judgment, and they should not be read as one; a court can question a litigant sharply and still grant the relief sought. But the themes the Court chose to press are of interest well beyond this case, because they touch a question the law is still working out: what standard of responsibility attaches to the large and growing class of self-appointed online commentators who reach mass audiences without the institutional checks that apply to traditional media.
The Court’s point that a commentator who has created his own role, without qualification or rulebook, bears more responsibility for understanding his impact rather than less, is a notable framing. It cuts against the intuition that the absence of formal regulation means greater latitude, and suggests instead that the reach of the platform is itself the source of the duty. The second observation, on personally naming an individual in a manner that may cross legal limits, marks the familiar boundary between commentary on issues and targeting of persons, which is where much online-speech litigation turns.
The observation specific to the SC/ST Act is the one with the sharpest legal edge at the bail stage. The Act is a protective statute with a heightened threshold, and Section 18 restricts anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under it is made out. The Court’s caution that a protected area cannot be treated like ordinary public debate reflects that statutory design. It should be read, however, alongside the petitioner’s own case, that the programme was about caste, that he regards himself as an anti-caste-discrimination activist, and that the remarks were provoked, which goes precisely to the question of intention that offences under the Act require. The Court has said it will watch the video before deciding, which is the appropriate course, and which is why these observations are a signal of the Court’s concerns rather than a conclusion.
Nothing has been decided. The plea remains part-heard, both sides’ submissions 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: Anticipatory bail plea part-heard. Observations made orally in the course of the hearing; no finding recorded. Court to view the video in chambers.