Today(9th August),The Delhi High Court has rescheduled the hearing of former IAS officer Puja Khedkar’s anticipatory bail application to August 12, following an adjournment of the original Friday session due to the bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad not convening.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(9th August), The Delhi High Court has rescheduled the hearing for former IAS officer Puja Khedkar’s anticipatory bail plea to August 12. This plea challenges a district court’s decision that denied her anticipatory bail in connection with a serious allegation that she falsified her identity to secure more attempts in the highly competitive civil services examination than she was legally permitted.
The hearing, originally set for Friday, was adjourned because the bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad did not convene. The hearing is now rescheduled for the following Monday. This plea follows Khedkar’s previous bail request, which was denied by the Patiala House Court last week.
Serious Allegations and the Need for Investigation
The district court, particularly Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala, emphasized the gravity of the accusations against Khedkar. The court noted that these allegations—pertaining to the falsification of identity to gain additional attempts in the civil services exam—were serious and warranted a thorough investigation.
“Custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and identify the involvement of other individuals implicated in it.”
-stated Judge Jangala.
In denying Khedkar’s bail, the court observed-
“Given the current facts and circumstances, I believe that this case is not suitable for the exercise of discretionary powers to grant anticipatory bail to the accused.”
Charges Against Khedkar
The court highlighted the severity of the charges against Puja Khedkar, which include offenses under Section 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 89 and 91 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The court asserted that “the applicant/accused has cheated the complainant by misrepresentation.”
Alleged Conspiracy and Document Falsification
The complainant, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), alleged that Khedkar created and submitted various documents to support her fraudulent claims.
ALSO READ: [Cheating Case] Former IAS Trainee Puja Khedkar Seeks Anticipatory Bail in Delhi HC
According to the court-
“The conspiracy was meticulously planned and executed by the applicant/accused over an extended period.”
The court further suggested that Khedkar could not have executed this conspiracy on her own and that external or internal assistance was likely involved. It was also contended by the Delhi Police that Khedkar’s OBC (non-creamy layer) status and her claim of being a person with multiple benchmark disabilities were also under scrutiny.
The Need for Enhanced Transparency in UPSC
The court underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the UPSC, a constitutional body responsible for conducting examinations for some of the most prestigious posts in the country. The complainant/UPSC, being a constitutional body, is conducting the exams for the prestigious posts to which aspirants from the whole country are applying. Therefore, the complainant is required to maintain the highest degree of transparency and fairness in its standard operating procedure.
In this context, the court expressed concern over the UPSC’s apparent failure to detect the breach in its system, highlighting that this case might only be “the tip of the iceberg.” The court admonished the UPSC, noting that-
“If the applicant/accused can circumvent the complainant’s scrutiny system, why couldn’t others?”
To preserve the integrity, fairness, and public trust in the examination process, the court recommended that the UPSC strengthen its standard operating procedures (SOP).
“Therefore, to uphold the reputation, fairness, integrity, and trust of aspirants and the public, the complainant must enhance its SOP to prevent such incidents from occurring in the future.”
The court also advised the UPSC to reevaluate its recent recommendations to identify candidates who may have similarly exploited the system. Specifically, the court suggested an investigation into candidates who (a) illegally availed more attempts than permissible, (b) claimed OBC (non-creamy layer) benefits without being entitled, and (c) obtained the benefits of persons with benchmark disabilities without eligibility.
Furthermore, the court directed the investigating agency to broaden the scope of its investigation, stating that –
“It should investigate whether an insider from the complainant’s side may have assisted the applicant in achieving her illegal objectives.”
Recently, the Delhi High Court granted Puja Khedkar the liberty to approach an appropriate forum to challenge the cancellation of her candidature. Meanwhile, the UPSC informed the court that it would provide Khedkar with the official order regarding the cancellation of her candidature within two days.
