In a recent legal development, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea of Puja Khedkar, a probationary Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer accused of committing significant fraud. The UPSC’s stance, detailed in an affidavit submitted to the Delhi High Court, underscores the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for custodial interrogation to fully uncover the extent of the fraud.
Khedkar, who has been charged with cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and violations of the Information Technology Act and the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, allegedly manipulated her identity to fraudulently secure additional attempts at the civil services examination. The UPSC has described the fraud as unprecedented and argued that it involved a high level of complexity and deceit, affecting not only the commission but also public trust in its credibility.
The affidavit highlights that Khedkar’s alleged actions—such as faking her identity to gain more examination attempts—required the involvement of other individuals, whose identities and roles are critical to the investigation. The UPSC insists that custodial interrogation is essential to identify these individuals and gather substantial evidence.
On August 12, the Delhi High Court had granted Khedkar interim protection from arrest, extending until August 21. This followed the UPSC’s decision on July 31 to cancel her provisional candidature and bar her from future examinations. The UPSC’s affidavit argues that Khedkar’s fraudulent actions were not only extensive but also meticulously planned, involving false statements and manipulation of documents to mislead authorities.
The Delhi court had previously refused Khedkar’s anticipatory bail, noting that her custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the full scope of the conspiracy. It also criticized Khedkar’s actions for potentially depriving other deserving candidates of their opportunities and emphasized that the case might be “just the tip of the iceberg.”
In response to the court’s scrutiny, Khedkar’s defense questioned the necessity of custodial interrogation, arguing that the crime, though significant, could be investigated without her detention. They highlighted that the nature of the offense involves misrepresentation rather than direct tampering with examination processes.
The UPSC’s affidavit further raises concerns about the potential tampering of medical reports used to claim disability benefits, suggesting that such documents might have been obtained through unfair means. The commission asserts that thorough investigation is required to address these concerns and to ensure justice.
As the Delhi High Court prepares to deliberate on the need for Khedkar’s custodial interrogation, the case continues to capture significant attention due to its implications for both the integrity of the civil services examination process and public trust in governmental institutions.
Sources By Agencies
