Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
Influencer and reservation-reform activist Ajeet Bharti has hit back after Delhi Police registered an FIR against him under provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act over remarks linked to Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram) chief and Nagina MP, Chandrashekhar Azad, according to reports. Most offences under the SC/ST Act are non-bailable.
The case was registered at Delhi’s North Avenue police station following a complaint by the Delhi unit president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).
advertisement
The complaint relates to a clip from Bharti’s August 22 YouTube broadcast, in which he has been accused of making casteist, abusive and objectionable remarks. Bharti has denied using a casteist word against Chandrashekhar Azad, calling the FIR “pressure-driven”.
He added that he would cooperate with police while claiming that the case “won’t survive two minutes in court”.
Ajeet Bharti is among the influencers who amplified online campaigns to reform caste-based reservations and the now-stayed UGC equity regulations, which he said “unfairly targetted the upper-castes”.
Bharti also attended and addressed the August 21 protest at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, called by the Reservation Reform Andolan led by NEET aspirant Harsh Dubey. A large number of protesters gathered to demand changes to the reservation system, arguing that benefits should be based on economic circumstances rather than a blanket caste-based framework.
The mobilisation for quota reform gathered momentum over several weeks before the August 21 protests, followed the CJP protests that culminated in Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation. In the following weeks, anti-reservation demonstrations spread to several states. Karni Sena-led protests in Rajasthan’s Jaipur where hundreds of supporters gathered against the UGC equity regulations, which the Supreme Court stayed. Karni Sena members also joined the August 21 demonstration in Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
At the Jantar Mantar protest, Ajeet Bharti called for a government white paper on evaluation of the impact of reservations, sub-categorisation within quotas and the application of a creamy-layer principle. The anti-reservation mobilisation triggered sharp political and caste-based exchanges online and on the ground.
Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad’s Azad Samaj Party has been among the political voices critical of the quota reform movement and its demands. NDA ally and Union minister Chirag Paswan hit back, saying “reservation wasn’t a charity”.
AJEET BHARTI FACES FIR OVER YOUTUBE BROADCAST, BOOKED UNDER SC-ST ACT
The FIR against Bharti was registered at Delhi Police’s North Avenue police station after a complaint from the Delhi unit president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), which is led by Chandrashekhar Azad. He is a leader from the Jatav community, who heads the Dalit-linked Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), which he founded in 2020.
The complaint concerns remarks made during Bharti’s August 22 YouTube programme, titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti”.
Responding to a live-chat comment that said, “Ajeet Bharti, get your sister married to MP Chandrashekhar and reservation will end,” Bharti said he would not get his sister married to “a fool like Chandrashekhar”.
He referred to the caste term “chamar” and made derogatory remarks about the Nagina MP’s appearance, saying he “wasn’t even worth spitting on”.
Bharti then made a series of sexually explicit and abusive comments directed at the commenter’s sister and mother. He also invoked BR Ambedkar’s marriage to a Brahmin woman, saying the Dalit-rights champion had earned his degrees without reservation. Bharti further called those commenting against him “a bunch of idiots” and said, “I am going to teach you this everyday.”
The complainant has alleged that Bharti used casteist and abusive language, made objectionable remarks concerning BR Ambedkar, used sexually degrading language about women and issued threats.
Ajeet Bharti has been booked under provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act over the remarks.
AJEET BHARTI DENIES HE MADE CASTEIST REMARKS
Days later, Bharti, in a detailed response on X, said his remarks were prompted by what he described as a vulgar and provocative comment involving his mother and sister.
“If someone says about my mother or sister, with a rapist mentality, that he would get her married to Chandrashekhar, and I remain silent, then tell me, what kind of son or brother would I be?” he wrote.
Bharti claimed that he had not used a casteist word against Chandrashekhar Azad. “Even then, I did not use any casteist word against Chandrashekhar, as is clear in the video in question,” he said.
He also referred to remarks about Brahmin women allegedly being made on social media platforms. “When people speak from the stage about dragging away Brahmin daughters, and a follower of an SC leader deliberately makes such a remark to provoke me, how can I remain silent? Bharti added.
In his response, Bharti appeared to frame the episode as a reaction to an alleged provocation. However, whether the remarks in the broadcast meet the legal threshold for offences under the SC/ST Act will be determined through the police investigation and the courts.
Activist Tehseen Poonawalla has backed Ajeet Bharti following the FIR. The two had earlier found common ground in opposing the Centre’s E20 fuel-blending policy, and both faced criticism from several quarters over their stand.
In a post on X, Poonawalla said, “Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with Ajeet Bharti; it is our duty to stand by him.”
Poonawalla alleged that the government had engaged in “match fixing” with certain groups that were allowed to protest and escaped action despite allegedly attacking Delhi Police personnel. Contrasting this with the case against Bharti, he wrote, “Those who did violence against our cops faced no charges, but Ajeet Bharati has an FIR!”
AJEET BHARTI CALLS FIR PRESSURE-DRIVEN, CASE WON’T STAND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY
Ajeet Bharti alleged that the case was filed after pressure was exerted on police by Azad Samaj Party members. “I know how much pressure Azad Samaj Party members put on Delhi Police’s North Avenue police station to have this FIR registered at midnight,” he wrote on X.
“It will not survive two minutes in court. Not a single section will hold,” Bharti added.
There was no immediate response from Delhi Police or the Azad Samaj Party to his claim of political pressure.
Bharti also said he was aware of the legal limits on speech. “Today, whether or not a person understands their fundamental rights, they certainly know what the SC/ST Act is. So when I speak, I know my limits, however unfair they may be, about what I can and cannot say,” he said.
The FIR has added a fresh legal and political flashpoint to the broader mobilisation around reservation reforms and the UGC equity regulations.
The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a stringent law intended to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from caste-based humiliation, violence, discrimination and social or economic exclusion. Its provisions can carry imprisonment, restrict anticipatory bail in applicable cases and require prompt investigation. These make an FIR under the Act legally serious even as the allegations must ultimately be proven in court.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
