E-Paper
UPSC, Delhi police press for ‘custodial interrogation’ of Puja Khedkar
Additional sessions judge (ASJ) Devender Kumar Jangala reserved his decision on Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea, scheduling the pronouncement of the order for Thursday (August 1)
New Delhi: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and Delhi Police on Wednesday pressed for the custodial interrogation of controversial trainee IAS officer Puja Khedkar, who is accused of falsifying her identity to secure additional attempts in the civil services examination.
Seeking pre-arrest bail, Khedkar, however, maintained that the cheating charges against her are still a matter of inquiry and should be treated as such until a thorough investigation is conducted.
Additional sessions judge (ASJ) Devender Kumar Jangala reserved his decision on Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea, scheduling the pronouncement of the order for Thursday (August 1).
Khedkar had been under scrutiny following complaints about alleged fake certificates and misconduct during her appointment as a probationary IAS officer in Pune.
The case against Khedkar, who secured All India Rank 821 in the 2022 UPSC examination, was initiated after the Delhi Police filed a first information report (FIR) on July 19, based on a complaint from the UPSC.
The Commission has accused her of breaching the sanctity of India’s premier examination by allegedly concealing information to gain an unfair advantage.
Also Read: UPSC cancels candidature of probationary IAS Officer Puja Khedkar
In her plea for anticipatory bail, Khedkar strongly argued that she should be given the opportunity to respond to the serious charges levelled against her. She highlighted that a show cause notice was issued by the UPSC on July 18, and within just one day, an FIR was lodged against her.
“On July 18, I was given a notice to show cause. The very next day they filed an FIR, and now they are insisting on my custodial interrogation. Why such swift action? I should be allowed to explain my position, and for that, I need anticipatory bail and a stay of arrest,” her counsel, advocate Bina Madhavan, contended.
To counter allegations concerning her disability status, Khedkar presented a disability certificate signed by eight doctors, confirming a 47% disability. She further pointed out that a board at AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) also certified her as a person with benchmark disabilities.
Madhavan further argued that Khedkar’s failure to disclose the number of exam attempts is a matter for inquiry, not immediate criminal action. “The allegation is that I mentioned 5 attempts, whereas it should have been 12. However, given that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act was not applied in earlier attempts, I appeared under a different quota. Whether this was done in good faith needs to be investigated,” she argued.
Madhavan also claimed that Khedkar is being subjected to a “witch hunt” by the media and suggested that the case was initiated in retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint Khedkar had filed during her training.
The Delhi Police, represented by special public prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava, opposed the bail application, arguing that Khedkar might not cooperate with the investigation if granted anticipatory bail. Srivastava emphasised that Khedkar had cheated the UPSC by failing to disclose her previous nine attempts. “Had she revealed the correct information, she would not have been allowed to appear for the exam,” he contended.
Srivastava further alleged that Khedkar had repeatedly changed her name to deceive the UPSC. When the court inquired about the necessity for her arrest and custodial interrogation, Srivastava responded that her shifting narratives warranted it, as the investigation was still in its early stages and much remained to be uncovered.
Senior advocate Naresh Kaushik, representing the UPSC, also opposed Khedkar’s bail plea. Kaushik argued that Khedkar had openly admitted to the offense by acknowledging she provided incorrect information about her exam attempts. He told the court that Khedkar had abused the legal process to unlawfully secure employment, which not only constituted an offense against the UPSC but also against society by denying an eligible candidate the opportunity for employment.
“By her actions, she has breached the integrity of the examination system, showing complete disregard for UPSC rules,” Kaushik argued. He also pointed out that Khedkar had altered the spelling of her name and even changed the names of her parents to deceive the system.
After considering the arguments, the court reserved its decision, which is expected to be announced on Thursday.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Commission also cancelled the provisional candidature of Khedkar and permanently debarred her from all future examinations and selection procedures.
