The Delhi Police on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) opposed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s plea for anticipatory bail in a case over alleged casteist remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, arguing that the statements attracted provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Police told Justice Saurabh Banerjee that the alleged remarks directly insulted a particular caste and were made publicly on a social media platform.

“On the facts of the case, there are clear cut allegations which are directly insulting a particular caste. All these words have been said in a social media platform. It is not that it was done within closed walls. Thirdly, he (Mr Bharti) does not belong to the same category of caste. So these three things are there to attract the SC/ST Act,” the prosecutor said.

Mr. Azad’s counsel also opposed the bail plea, describing the alleged remarks as derogatory and intentional.

Mr Bharti’s lawyer, however, argued that the SC/ST Act was not attracted as there was no intention to insult or humiliate Mr Azad on the ground of his caste. The remarks, he said, had to be considered in the context of the social media exchange in which they were made.

During the hearing, the court questioned the police over the investigation and asked how many notices had been issued to Mr Bharti to join the probe. “No notices sent to him? Why? You don’t require custodial interrogation or what?” Justice Banerjee asked.

The prosecutor said the investigating officer had obtained Mr. Bharti’s address only two days ago through a social media platform, which was why notices could not be sent earlier.

Mr. Bharti’s counsel maintained that a caste reference, by itself, would not constitute an offence unless it was accompanied by an intention to insult or humiliate a person on account of caste. He said the remarks concerning Mr. Azad arose from an exchange on social media and were not intended to target the Lok Sabha MP because of his caste.

After hearing the parties, Justice Banerjee said he would pass an order on the anticipatory bail plea.

Mr. Bharti moved the High Court after a trial court rejected his pre-arrest bail plea on September 7.

Mr. Azad, chief of the Bhim Army, had alleged in a complaint to the Delhi Police that Mr Bharti made caste-based, abusive, derogatory and humiliating remarks against him, members of the Scheduled Caste community and B.R. Ambedkar on social media.

The FIR has been registered under provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said the multi-storey hostel building collapse in Satya Niketan, which resulted in the death of seven persons including students, was not an ordinary mishap.

A Bench of Chief Justice D. K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the four students who died came to the nation’s capital from small towns with hopes of building a career, but these were “shattered” due to the “callous and criminal conduct” of certain persons.

“Four students lost their lives in the mishap…very tragic. It’s not an ordinary incident of any mishap. These four students had come to the capital with a lot of hopes and dreams, coming from small towns. All of that was shattered by such callous and criminal conduct on the part of (certain persons),” the court orally remarked.

The building at Satya Niketan, which housed a boys’ paying-guest accommodation near the Delhi University’s South Campus, collapsed on September 6 while repair work was underway. Several people were also injured in the collapse.

Lack of hostels

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma said that several steps have been taken by the authorities after the incident, including proactive mapping and earmarking of land and other facilities for students.

The Bench, however, responded that the issue of lack of hostel facilities was not a “new phenomenon”.

“Who doesn’t know the problem of hostels in the city? Students are flocking to Delhi for higher education, and this is not a new phenomenon. It has been happening for the last 20-25 years in the hope that they will build their career. See what has happened,” the Bench remarked.

The court was hearing a petition by Aakarshak Danveer Rathi seeking an independent probe into the matter, inspection of all paying guests as well as compensation and a rehabilitation scheme for victims and their families.

The court said the petition would be heard along with another pending petition on September 25.

The court on September 7 ordered a high-level MCD inquiry into the incident and made it clear that the government cannot evade responsibility.