Ajeet Bharti’s Anticipatory Bail Plea Rejected by Delhi High Court in SC/ST Act Case

The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over alleged casteist and derogatory remarks. Justice Saurabh Banerjee said the offence under the SC/ST Act was prima facie made out against Bharti and dismissed his anticipatory bail plea as not maintainable.

The High Court cited the statutory bar on granting anticipatory bail under the special enactment, Live Law reported . A detailed order in the matter is awaited.

What Is The Ajeet Bharti Case?

Bharti had approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order that rejected his anticipatory bail plea. The case relates to an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks against members of the Scheduled Caste community, including Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar.

The FIR was registered under provisions of the SC/ST Act, along with Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and provisions of the Information Technology Act.

The allegations stem from an episode of Bharti's self-titled programme uploaded on his verified social media account and YouTube on August 22. The complaint alleges that the programme contained casteist, derogatory and humiliating remarks concerning members of the Scheduled Caste community.

What Did Ajeet Bharti's Lawyer Argue?

During the hearing, Bharti's counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the alleged remarks would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act unless there was an intentional insult or humiliation on account of caste identity. Ajeet Bharti Anticipatory Bail Denied: What Is the Case in Which Delhi Court Rejected His Plea?

The defence also submitted that Bharti's remarks should be considered in the context in which they were made, including alleged comments about Bharti's sister on social media.

The Delhi Police opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that the alleged remarks were directly insulting towards a particular caste and were made publicly on a social media platform rather than in a private setting.

Counsel appearing for the complainant also argued that the remarks were derogatory and intentional, submitting that around 23,000 people were allegedly watching when the statements were made and that the caste was repeatedly referred to. Reservation Hatao Andolan: Thousands Gather at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar Over UGC Norms, Security Tightened (Videos).

What Did The Trial Court Say?

The trial court had earlier rejected Bharti's anticipatory bail plea, observing that his remarks concerning the caste and marriageability of a sitting Member of Parliament prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

The trial court also observed that Bharti's reference to an 'Upper' and 'Lower' caste hierarchy in the context of marriage prima facie indicated an intent to humiliate.

During the High Court proceedings, the court had orally questioned the Delhi Police about why no notice had been issued to Bharti and whether his custodial interrogation was required.

The High Court has now dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, holding that the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act applies after finding that the offence was prima facie made out.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Sep 24, 2026 03:22 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).