New Delhi, September 10, 2026

A Delhi court has rejected journalist and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case over alleged caste-based remarks concerning Bhim Army chief and Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad alias Ravan. The court prima facie found references to caste hierarchy and notions of upper-caste superiority in the context of marriage and ancestry.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler said the suggestion that Azad should prove himself worthy of marrying an upper-caste woman was a specific caste reference and humiliating. The court found prima facie ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The judge declared, “The assertion that the said MP should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl is a specific reference to caste and humiliating as to why a person fit to be married to anyone in SC/ST community has to be something extra/something more/worthy of marrying a girl in upper caste.”

Bharti’s lawyer, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the relevant SC/ST Act provisions were not prima facie attracted and that the remarks were hypothetical and metaphorical. He maintained that the complete, unaltered video and its context should be considered.

The court observed that Bharti’s remarks involved an “invocation of caste names, not as a stray or quarrelsome aside but as the organising device” of his response. It held that the statutory bar under Section 18 applied and rejected the bail plea. The judge clarified, “This is not an exercise in appreciating evidence or determining guilt, but a threshold enquiry to ascertain whether the statutory bar under sections 18/18A even arises for consideration.”

The FIR was filed on August 23 after a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi state president of Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). It invokes provisions of the SC/ST Act, IT Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita over alleged abusive and caste-based remarks concerning Azad and B R Ambedkar, along with other allegations. The court’s order is limited to the anticipatory bail issue and does not determine Bharti’s guilt or innocence.