A case has been registered against YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at Delhi’s North Avenue police station, days after he emerged as one of the most prominent voices of the reservation reform mobilisation at Jantar Mantar.
The FIR, filed on August 23, stems from a complaint by the Delhi unit president of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). It invokes multiple provisions of the SC/ST Act, along with Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint centers on an August 22 video in which Bharti allegedly made objectionable remarks involving Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad — historically known by the alias “Ravan” — as well as B.R. Ambedkar. He is accused of using caste-based and abusive language, sexually degrading remarks about women, and issuing threats.
After the FIR was registered, Bharti posted a detailed statement on social media laying out his defence and directing a set of questions at the upper-caste (“savarna”) community. He claimed that obscene and derogatory comments had been made about his mother and sister on his video, and that staying silent in the face of such a personal attack was not possible, while maintaining that he himself did not use any caste-based slur. He wrote that the sections invoked in the FIR would not hold up in court, alleging the case was filed under police pressure, and said he would follow the law and fully cooperate with the investigation. Referring to his years at a Sainik School, Bharti said his morale would not break so easily. He went on to ask whether, out of fear of any political party or ideology, people should silently tolerate indecent remarks made against their mothers and sisters.
The case comes at a politically charged moment. Bharti had just days earlier been a central figure at the August 21 “Reservation Hatao Andolan” gathering at Jantar Mantar, where he called for a government White Paper reviewing nearly eight decades of the reservation system, a “quota within quota” to ensure benefits reach the most disadvantaged groups, stronger support for Economically Weaker Sections, and minimum qualifying marks for reserved-category candidates.
This is not the first legal trouble for the influencer — he has previously faced a contempt petition over remarks about the Supreme Court, questioning by Noida Police over comments following the shoe-throwing incident targeting Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, and an FIR in Karnataka over claims about Rahul Gandhi.