The anticipatory bail hearing for Puja Khedkar, a trainee IAS officer, took a dramatic turn as UPSC counsel Advocate Naresh Kaushik accused her of attempting to mislead the court. The hearing, which focused on allegations of misrepresentation, has seen the court reserve its order, with an announcement expected tomorrow at 4 pm.
During the proceedings, Advocate Kaushik argued that Khedkar’s counsel had claimed she was under the impression she was entitled to Other Backward Classes (OBC) benefits following the 2018 Act. According to this justification, Khedkar had provided false information based on her belief. However, Kaushik contended that the UPSC rules are explicit: benefits for OBC candidates have been available from the inception of the regulations, not just from 2018.
Kaushik emphasized, “The petitioner’s counsel argued that she believed bona fide she was entitled to OBC benefits after the introduction of the 2018 act. On that basis only, she had given the false information. But our rules are very clear. The benefits are available from the very beginning and I argued before the court that it is completely an afterthought and an attempt to mislead the court. She has not only misled the system but she is trying to mislead the court also.”
Khedkar is accused of securing her IAS appointment by availing extra attempts due to the alleged false information regarding her OBC status. The UPSC claims that without these extra attempts, her candidature would have been invalid. Kaushik stated, “She has committed offences without which she would not have been able to secure the appointment. She is entitled to a maximum number of attempts which are at 9, concealing that, she has availed benefits of extra attempts as a result whereof her candidature itself was not valid.”
Background: The Case Against Puja Khedkar
Puja Khedkar, an IAS trainee, is under scrutiny for allegedly misrepresenting her caste status to gain benefits reserved for OBC candidates. The controversy centers around the claim that she received undue advantages and extra attempts by providing inaccurate information regarding her eligibility.
The case has sparked a significant legal debate, with Khedkar’s defense arguing that her understanding of the rules was in good faith. In contrast, the UPSC and its legal representatives maintain that her actions constituted a deliberate attempt to deceive and gain an unfair advantage.