Puja Khedkar claims witch hunt over sexual harassment complaint; Delhi Court reserves order on bail plea

A Delhi court on Wednesday reserved its order on the anticipatory bail moved by the trainee Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Puja Khedkar accused of fraudulently clearing the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examination. .Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Devender Kumar Jangala will pronounce the order at 4 PM on Thursday..Khedkar today alleged that the case against her had been lodged at the behest of the Pune Collector against whom she had made a sexual harassment complaint. "I (Khedkar) filed a complaint for sexual harassment and that is why all this is being done against me. I didn't go to media," her counsel submitted.She also argued that she should be given an opportunity to defend herself under the service rules. "Her parents are divorced. She is a disabled person. And she has been disabled by the very system which was supposed to protect her. Why is the UPSC doing all this against her? Because she is a woman? Because she is a disabled person?," her counsel today told the Court, while seeking anticipatory bail.However, both the Delhi Police and UPSC argued that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case as Khedkar had duped the system and society..Delhi Police had recently lodged the case against Khedkar on a complaint filed by the UPSC.Khedkar is accused of fraudulently availing the reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities to clear the UPSC exam.According to an investigation done by the UPSC, Khedkar had also "fraudulently availed attempts beyond the permissible limit under the Examination Rules by faking her identity by way of changing her name, her father's & mother's name, her photograph/ signature, her email ID, mobile number and address." .Khedkar claims witch hunt.Seeking interim bail for Khedkar, her counsel advocate Bina Madhavan today said there was an imminent threat of her arrest.Madhavan also argued that Khedkar as a probationer is covered under the probationary officer rules and has some rights under that.She denied the UPSC allegation that Khedkar had availed attempts beyond permissible limits by changing her name and other identity details."They say they got several complaints against her... But she didn't suppress any information, she has wrongly mentioned the number of attempt," the counsel said.On the allegation that Khedkar had fraudulently availed the benefit under disability quota, Madhavan placed on record a disability certificate to show that she is a candidate with multiple disabilities.She has permanent benchmark disability and percentage of disability is 47 percent, the Court was told."It (disability certificate) is by 8 doctors. It is a board of AIIMS. The original copy is with the UPSC.".However, Madhavan also submitted that the allegation of withholding of information related to attempts by Khedkar was a matter of inquiry. "The only allegation against me is that I have withheld information about attempts. I wrote 5 but I should have said 12. It is because I availed those attempts under a different quota. Whether it was done in good faith or not is to be inquired," she said.It was also argued that she was being called by different authorities."I am required for custodial interrogation. I should be given ample opportunity to defend myself. Why they launched these proceedings like this? I have been called by multiple authorities. IAS Academic Mussoorie has called me, Pune Commissioner has called me. DoPT has given me a notice as well.".Contending that she needs anticipatory bail to defend herself, Khedkar also alleged that media has launched a "witch hunt" against her.It was also alleged Khedkar was being harassed because she had made a complaint of sexual harassment against Pune Collector in whose office she was posted. .During the hearing, the Court questioned Khedkar's counsel regarding her claim that she had been permitted by High Court to sit for the exam again."You are saying UPSC has filed a complaint against you for three additional attempts. You are saying you were permitted by the High Court to do so. Now show me the High Court orders," the judge asked.Madhavan responded that Khedkar had been permitted by way of interim orders. However, the counsel representing the UPSC contested the claim."There was no adjudication by the High Court that she is eligible to sit for the additional exams," the Court was told..While explaining her additional attempts for the examination, Madhavan went on to argue that Khedkar was a fighter as she had to fight the UPSC at every stage."This woman is a fighter. She had to fight at every stage to get her candidature validated. Life is not easy for a person with disabilities," the counsel said.Alleging that the criminal prosecution against Khedkar was a witch hunt, Madhavan said,"She may not have mentioned that she has made 10 attempts. But she said like SC/ST candidates give me n number of attempts. If she writes 12 attempts on the form, her candidature will be rejected outright."Madhavan also defended her name change, saying,"In this country, anyone can change their name. But this was done in a lawful manner.".She will not cooperate after pre-arrest bail: Delhi Police.Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, representing the Delhi Police, argued that Khedkar had failed to mention details regarding her earlier attempts in her petitions before the courts.It was also alleged that Khedkar had intentionally changed her name to dupe the UPSC."Look at the name in her applications till the year 2018. She took advantage of the loopholes and changed her name," Srivastava further submitted.Opposing any grant of relief to Khedkar, Srivastava said,"Golden principle of law is a person is not entitled to any relief if he does not come to court with clean hands. I ask a question, is this not serious concealment of facts?".When Court questioned the investigating agency on the need for Khedkar's custody, Srivastava said,"She has been changing her stand again and again and that is why we need custodial interrogation."The Court at this stage said,"Why? All the records have been given to you."Srivastava responded that the probe was at a nascent stage."Pehle unhone n mental illness bola fir alag alag cheez add kar di (She initially claimed mental illness then she added more things). Her rank would have been 1800 or something, but she was chosen because of these falsities," the counsel said.However, the Court questioned the need to arrest Khedkar at this stage,"If your investigation is at such a nascent stage, then why are you in such a hurry to arrest her?"Srivastava responded that Khedkar would not cooperate if she is granted anticipatory bail.It was also alleged that Khedkar had claimed her parents' divorce to overcome the hurdle of creamy layer exclusion under the OBC Category..Khedkar abused process of law: UPSC.When the UPSC counsel started arguments in the matter, the Court at the outset questioned the constitutional body's apparent failure in the case."First explain this. Whether it is the failure of the UPSC to allow this to happen or the expertise of the applicant," the Court asked Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik.In response, Kaushik said the UPSC is not an investigating agency."The techniques employed by persons like this cannot be verified by the system," he said.However, when the Court again asked whether verification was not the job of UPSC, Kaushik said,"Prima facie verification and scrutiny of documents is the job of the UPSC."On merits, Kaushik said Khedkar had accepted that she had given wrong information about number of attempts."She has abused the process of law not just before the UPSC but even before the courts of law," the senior counsel said..UPSC also contended that Khedkar had secured public employment unlawfully which is an offence not only against the UPSC but the entire society as well."Perhaps she is guilty of the offence of perjury before the courts as well ...Our rules are very clear that she is liable to prosecution and disqualification. Prosecution is primary," Kaushik said.Kaushik also argued that investigation was necessary to unearth the methods used by her because others can also use similar methods."She says she changed her name and it can be done. Name can be changed but how do you change the spellings of your name? She is not entitled to change the name of parents but she even did that," he added.Opposing any relief to Khedkar, the UPSC said,"Prima facie the documentary evidence is available. But to say that because these documents are there you don't need to interrogate... This person has abused the law and process of law. The chances of her abusing the law is still there. She is a resourceful person."