‘Not a drug lord, terrorist or murderer’: SC grants anticipatory bail to ex-IAS probationer Puja Khedkar in UPSC cheating case
In a dramatic legal development, the Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to former IAS probationer Puja Khedkar. While passing the order, the bench noted, “She is not a drug lord, terrorist, or murderer.” The court made this statement while questioning the need for custodial interrogation in a non-violent case like hers.
Who Is Puja Khedkar?
Puja Khedkar had cleared the 2022 UPSC Civil Services Examination and was appointed as an IAS officer in Maharashtra. However, within months, allegations emerged that she had misused reservation categories to secure her position.
Authorities accused her of faking documents to qualify under the OBC and disability quotas. These categories provide special consideration to marginalized candidates, and misuse of them is a serious offense.
Supreme Court Questions Harsh Action
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted the bail. They asked why the Delhi High Court had rejected her plea despite the non-violent nature of the allegations.
The bench said that anticipatory bail should not be denied unless the situation demands custodial questioning. The judges added that Khedkar had not committed a violent crime, and the police could continue their probe while she remained out on bail.
The court directed Khedkar to cooperate fully with the investigation. However, they clarified that her arrest was not essential at this point.
Allegations Against Khedkar
The Delhi Police filed an FIR in July 2024, accusing Khedkar of forgery, cheating, and using fake documents. Investigators claim she submitted a medical certificate stating she had a 40% mental disability. She also reportedly used OBC documents to qualify under the reserved category.
The UPSC and the police allege that these documents were not genuine. They believe Khedkar used these to unfairly compete against general category candidates.
Officers also claimed that she failed to attend questioning sessions and ignored multiple summons. They argued that this behavior showed a lack of cooperation.
Khedkar’s Defense: Denial of Charges
Khedkar denied all allegations. Her legal team argued that she had followed due process and submitted all required documents. They claimed that the case was politically motivated and aimed at ruining her career.
Her lawyers also told the court that she never tried to run away or avoid legal procedures. They insisted that she was willing to assist in the investigation, just not under arrest.
Court Reiterates Purpose of Bail
The court clarified that granting bail did not mean clearing her of the charges. Instead, it helped protect her from unnecessary arrest while ensuring her cooperation in the case.
Justice Nagarathna stated, “Just because someone is accused doesn’t mean they must be arrested. Bail ensures liberty while keeping the legal process intact.”
The court also criticized the Delhi High Court for rejecting her plea without enough justification.
UPSC Under Scrutiny
The case has sparked nationwide debate on how UPSC verifies reservation claims. The UPSC is known for its strict selection process. But this case has raised questions about gaps in its document verification systems.
Experts believe the system needs reform. Many want real-time verification of caste and disability certificates through digital databases. Without these checks, similar cases may keep slipping through the cracks.
Public Reaction: Divided Views
The public response has been mixed. Some feel the Supreme Court made the right call by upholding legal principles. Others argue that misuse of reservations must be punished to protect fairness in public recruitment.
Legal experts also chimed in. One Supreme Court advocate said, “The purpose of bail is not to punish but to ensure cooperation with the law. Arrest should be the last resort.”
What Comes Next?
With anticipatory bail in place, Puja Khedkar must now cooperate with investigators. She cannot leave the country and must appear whenever summoned.
If the police find strong evidence, they may proceed with filing charges. If not, she may eventually clear her name. In either case, her future in the civil services hangs in the balance.
The UPSC may also conduct its own review. If it finds violations, Khedkar could face permanent disqualification.
Conclusion
The Puja Khedkar case is more than a legal issue. It’s a test of how India treats accusations of fraud within its most prestigious exams. While the court has protected her liberty, it has also reminded her of her duty to face the law.
The next few months will determine whether this is a case of individual wrongdoing or a deeper flaw in the system. Either way, it calls for reforms in how India handles reservation policies, documentation, and candidate verification.
