To understand the sequence of events, we must look back to the 23rd of August, when a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Ajeet Bharti, a well-known journalist and YouTube content creator. The formal complaint was lodged by Balakram Bauddh, who serves as the Delhi state president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). This political group is led by Chandrashekhar Azad, widely known as Ravan, who is the chief of the Bhim Army and a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) representing the Nagina Lok Sabha constituency.

The controversy originated from one of Bharti’s YouTube videos titled, “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.” According to the allegations detailed in the FIR, Bharti used highly abusive and caste-centric language throughout the broadcast. He was accused of making deeply offensive comments directed at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and MP Chandrashekhar Azad, who belongs to a scheduled caste community. Additionally, the complaint stated that Bharti used sexually demeaning vocabulary against women and openly issued threats. The trigger for the entire episode, as noted in the police documents, was Bharti reacting to a comment from another individual. This person had mockingly suggested that caste-based reservations in India would come to an end if Bharti were to marry his sister to the parliamentarian.

Given the severity of the allegations, law enforcement booked Bharti under a robust legal framework. He faced charges under the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Fearing arrest, Bharti approached the Patiala House Courts in Delhi to seek anticipatory bail. During the legal proceedings, he was represented by Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. The defense lawyer strongly argued that the provisions under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not applicable at a prima facie level. Dehadrai pointed out that there was no concrete proof showing that any identified member of the SC/ST community was insulted in a public setting. He further highlighted that the person who filed the complaint was not actually present when the video was recorded, nor was he personally intimidated or offended by the incident as it happened.

Defending his client’s words, Dehadrai maintained that Bharti’s comments were purely hypothetical and metaphorical. They were not directed at any real, specific woman. The advocate strongly urged the court that serious accusations should not be automatically assumed against the YouTuber at a pre-arrest stage. According to the defense, a fair evaluation could only be made after taking into account the complete, unedited video and its broader context.

Despite the defense's reasoning, the court made strong initial observations on Monday, the 7th of September. As reported by the legal news portal Bar and Bench, the Delhi court stated that the language used in the video clearly pointed toward a deeply ingrained caste hierarchy. The court noted that his words reflected outdated ideas of caste-based purity, carrying a clear assumption that people from "upper" castes hold a superior position over those from "lower" castes, particularly in matters of ancestry and marriage.

The court took special note of Bharti’s alleged remark that the Nagina MP should prove himself "deserving" to marry an upper-caste girl. The court found this specific comment to be explicitly degrading and firmly rooted in caste prejudice. Presiding over the case, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler delivered a sharp observation regarding this mindset, noting:

“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.”

After carefully reviewing the material, the court firmly emphasized that the YouTuber’s choice of words constituted an “invocation of caste names, not as a stray or quarrelsome aside but as the organising device” of his entire response.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that the fundamental elements of an offense under section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act—which addresses intentionally humiliating, insulting, or using caste-based slurs against SC/ST members in public view—were clearly established in this matter. Consequently, the court decided that the statutory bar under section 18 of the Act would apply. This specific section strictly prohibits courts from granting anticipatory bail in such instances, leading to the immediate rejection of Bharti’s pre-arrest bail plea.

Interestingly, the court did acknowledge that Bharti’s outburst seemed to be a spontaneous reaction to someone else's statement, meaning that keeping him in police custody for interrogation was not strictly necessary. In fact, the judge hinted that if the specific violations of the SC/ST Act had not been clearly identified, the court might have considered granting Bharti the relief he sought.

Before wrapping up the session, ASJ Laler made sure to draw a clear line regarding the scope of his decision. The judge stressed that the pronouncements made in this order were strictly confined to assessing the anticipatory bail application. He clarified that the denial of bail should not be seen as a final judgment on Bharti’s culpability or innocence, nor did it confirm the absolute truth of the charges or analyze the complete context of the video. Summarizing the exact nature of the hearing, the judge stated:

“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.”