Ajeet Bharti Seeks Protection in P&H High Court from Punjab Police Action Over CJI Gavai Remarks

YouTuber Seeks Protection from High Court

Ajeet Bharti, a YouTuber and social media influencer, has gone to the Punjab and Haryana High Court and asked the court to protect him against possible arrest by the Punjab Police. This is a step following numerous reports that emerged that various First Information Reports or FIRs have been filed against him in Punjab. Bharti is also fearing to be to forcibly actioned by the state police, and who he believes may be executed without much warning.

The very gist of the matter is the controversial comments made by Bharti about the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai. Bharti has petitioned the High Court in his petition to compel Punjab government to furnish him with information on any FIRs pressed against him. He has also asked the police not to take any measures, which can be considered coercive, against him without first notifying him so that he gets time to seek legal redress.

The matter has been adjourned by the court that has listened to the initial plea. The next hearing will be mentioned as November 3, 2025, by justice Subhas Mehla. Meanwhile, the court has requested the state of Punjab legal counsel to ensure that the allegations are verified, and whether or not any such FIRs are in fact registered against Ajeet Bharti anywhere in the state. This court action has intensified the battle between the social media star and the law enforcers in the state.

This is not the first occasion when Bharti is subjected to police action on his online remarks. The Noida Police has already interrogated him in relation to the same scandal. His petition to the Punjab and Haryana High Court however is an indication of a new major legal challenge, considering that he is now exposed to the prospect of various cases being brought against him in various districts in Punjab.

The Controversial Remarks Against CJI Gavai

The legal issues surrounding Ajeet Bharti are as a result of the remarks he had made on social networks. All these were said following a shocking event at the Supreme Court, where an advocate tried to fling a shoe at the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai in the courtroom. It is the commentary given by Bharti on this accident that has received much criticism and investigations into the matter.

Bharti purportedly posted inflammatory and abusive words against the Chief Justice in his posts on-line, he is reported to have referred to him as a lousy and an undeserving judge. His statements were more far-reaching, as was alleged by complaints, and media coverage, including allegedly “casteist” and “provocative” statements. These remarks have been construed as such being a direct assault on the dignity of the CJI and the judiciary system as a whole.

The content of these remarks has seen more than a dozen FIRs being reported in Punjab. Such complaints are reported to bring in grave allegations, such as parts of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The so-called “casteist” content of the comments posted against CJI Gavai, the second Chief Justice of India to be of Dalit origin, has given the subject a very sensitive and indeed a highly dangerous case in the legal sphere of the YouTuber.

The Supreme Court incident involving the lawyer was also a huge condemnation being attacked as an institution. When Bharti was found expressing views which most people reckoned to be justifying or even exacerbating the disrespect extended to the CJI, she created a lot of fire on the fire. This has led to a co-ordinated legal response, several complaints have been filed against him and other social media accounts who have shared similar content.

Bharti’s Legal Defence and Plea

Ajeet Bharti has also given a defence of his deeds in his petition to the High Court even as he showed that he feared a roving enquiry by the Punjab Police. He states that he knows about the many FIRs not by any authority order but by mere media coverage. This is what his plea claims puts him in a disadvantaged situation because he might be detained at any time by a police officer in another state.

Bharti has had his legal team present the argument that what he said was journalistic opinion on what is of public relevance. In his petition, he has affirmed that he has utmost respect to the Judiciary and that his remarks despite their critical nature were aimed at enhancing the operations of the system. This defence is an attempt to put his controversial statements in the context of the freedom of speech and expression.

In addition to this, the petition indicates that Bharti did not issue any statement which has any criminal implication or violation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. He is essentially taking a swipe at legal foundation of the reported FIRs, implying that his words are not in compliance with what the statutes state about such serious criminal actions. He seeks the court to take action before he is taken through what his attorneys suggest would be a politically instigated and unfair court procedure.

His essence of request is that of transparency and due process. He is requesting the court to compel the Punjab Police to record any case against him. This would enable him to defend himself in court unlike being apprehended and marched into another state, which he says he fears. The plea is a pre-emptive attack in order to enjoy the protection of law.

The Preliminary Position of the High Court.
In the first hearing, the Punjab and Haryana High Court with a judge of the court being Justice Subhas Mehla did not provide Ajeet Bharti with any immediate protection against arrest. Rather, the court has been systematic by initially attempting to determine the truth of the case. The bench has instructed the counsel who represents the State of Punjab to collect information on all the districts and confirm whether there are actually FIRs registered.

The petition was objected to as being too broad by the advocate of the Punjab government. He held that, as the petitioner, Ajeet Bharti had not given the district or police station in question, a search of the FIRs in the whole state would constitute a roving enquiry. This implies that there is some form of resistance of the state to agree with this broad request.