The Delhi High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Ajeet Bharti in connection with an FIR alleging caste-based abuses and derogatory remarks against Azad Samaj Party leader and MP Chandrashekhar Azad. Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was made out, thereby attracting the statutory bar on anticipatory bail.
The FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station after a video circulated on social media allegedly containing caste-based slurs and remarks directed at Azad. The prosecution alleged that the video had been viewed by around 23,100 users when the FIR was registered. The FIR invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act, Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The Court noted that the applicant’s counsel had admitted that the applicant did not belong to the SC/ST communities and that, given the public nature of the social media platform and its wide audience, the video was published within “public view”.
The Court then examined the contents of the video in chambers, including the transcript placed on record by the investigating officer. It found that the remarks repeatedly identified Azad through caste names and slurs and were made in the context of his caste identity and social status. The Court observed:
“
“Applicant, being well aware of the named individual, his status, position, caste, gender, and the like, chose to make all the remarks he did within the context of what he was talking about. Reading the aforesaid extracted portion as a whole, including the actual words used by the applicant while referring to the named individual directly as also while alluding to him indirectly while simultaneously using explicit caste-names/ slurs, the nature, tone, tenor and manner of expression employed therein and the overall context in which they were made, this Court is of the prima facie view that the present FIR clearly discloses that the applicant used/ abused the named individual using caste-names/ slurs, which were with a view to humiliate the named individual within the purview of Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) SC/ ST Act.”
The High Court further held that the remarks went beyond general or stray abuse. It noted that the statements repeatedly invoked caste identity and referred to the concept of a person having to become “worthy” to seek marriage into a so-called upper-caste family.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, the Court explained that an intentional insult does not automatically constitute caste-based humiliation merely because the person targeted belongs to an SC/ST community. There must be an intention connected with caste identity or caste-based hierarchy.
Applying that test, the High Court said the repeated caste references in the video, coupled with the remarks concerning marriage and caste hierarchy, indicated that the statements were not merely reckless or stray comments. The Court held:
“
“They were clear references to caste, and explicit invocation of ideas of caste superiority prevalent in society, that too, with reference to the institution of marriage.”
The Court consequently concluded that a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was made out. Since Sections 18 and 18A(2) bar anticipatory bail where a prima facie offence under the Act is disclosed, the application was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.
The Court also rejected the argument that the remarks had been made after provocation online, observing that such alleged provocation could not shield the applicant from the consequences of his statements. It further noted that there was no case that the applicant had subsequently issued any clarification, explanation, retraction or apology.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to adjudication of the anticipatory bail application and would not prejudice the proceedings on merits.
