The Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that individuals who publicly identify themselves as YouTubers must exercise greater caution while expressing their views, particularly when their statements concern matters protected by special penal statutes.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the oral observations while hearing an anticipatory bail petition filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in connection with a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Court indicated that it would examine the video forming the subject matter of the prosecution before considering the petition further. The matter was consequently passed over to enable the Court to view the impugned video in chambers.
During the hearing, Bharti’s counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, submitted that his client earns his livelihood primarily through political discussions, videos and podcasts uploaded on YouTube. Counsel also maintained that Bharti had no intention of denigrating any caste and that the allegedly objectionable remarks had to be assessed in their complete context.
The proceedings stem from an episode of Bharti’s self-titled programme uploaded on his verified social media account and YouTube channel on August 22. The prosecution alleges that the video contained derogatory and humiliating references concerning members of the Scheduled Caste community, including Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and references to Dr BR Ambedkar. The alleged remarks arose in the context of a social-media comment concerning Bharti’s sister and her purported marriage to Azad.
The trial court had earlier declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the material placed before it prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. According to the trial court’s reasoning, the alleged remarks repeatedly invoked caste identities while discussing the marriageability of the named MP and appeared to draw upon a hierarchy between so-called upper and lower castes.
The trial court had further held that the statements could not, at the prima facie stage, be dismissed as a generic insult or an isolated reference to caste. It considered the alleged linkage between caste identity, social status and eligibility for marriage relevant to determining whether the statutory ingredient of intent to humiliate was prima facie attracted.
Against this backdrop, the High Court questioned the manner in which a person who has chosen to operate as a public commentator conducts himself in the digital sphere.
Justice Banerjee orally remarked that Bharti, having adopted the identity of a YouTuber, should remain conscious of the nature and consequences of his public expressions. The Court also emphasised that while an entire video may have to be examined rather than isolated portions being viewed out of context, the existence of statutory protections and special offences requires appropriate caution in public discourse.
The Court’s observations came in the context of Bharti’s contention that the impugned material should be assessed in its entirety and not through selected portions. The defence has maintained that the alleged caste-related comments were made while responding to offensive remarks concerning his family and were not intended to denigrate any community.
The prosecution has invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act along with Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and provisions of the Information Technology Act.
The High Court is considering the matter in Ajeet Bharti v. State, with the Court indicating that it would first examine the impugned video before proceeding further with the anticipatory bail plea.
The post Delhi High Court tells YouTuber Ajeet Bharti to exercise caution in SC/ST Act anticipatory bail plea appeared first on India Legal.