Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Government And UPSC On Anticipatory Bail Petition

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Delhi government and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), seeking a response on the anticipatory bail petition filed by Pooja Khedkar, a former trainee IAS officer who was dismissed from service. Additionally, the court has stayed her arrest until the next hearing, scheduled for February 14. A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna is currently hearing Khedkar’s petition.

Key Arguments And Court Observations

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Khedkar, highlighted that there are three charges against his client. Luthra argued that anticipatory bail was rejected despite Khedkar never being called for questioning. He emphasized that this was her first criminal case. Justice Nagarathna responded, stating that no harm had come to Khedkar and that no one had “touched her.”

Also Read: ED To Prosecute Arvind Kejriwal In Delhi Liquor Policy Case Amid Assembly Elections

Luthra further mentioned that the High Court had made a strong remark, almost indicating bias. In response, the court noted that nothing had happened to Khedkar, and no one had called her for questioning. The bench also inquired about Khedkar’s current situation, to which Luthra replied that she had lost her job and was now pursuing legal remedies.

Dispute Over Delhi High Court’s Ruling

Khedkar, in her petition, has challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision, claiming that it was unfair. The Delhi High Court had previously rejected her anticipatory bail petition and lifted the ban on her arrest. The Delhi Police has accused Khedkar of cheating in the civil services examination, as well as illegally exploiting the OBC and disability quotas.

During the hearing, Khedkar’s lawyer, Bina Madhavan, argued that her client was willing to cooperate in the investigation. Madhavan further claimed that Khedkar did not need to be taken into custody, as all the evidence in the case is documentary in nature. Additionally, Madhavan emphasized that Khedkar had never sought the cancellation of the FIR. The lawyer also pointed out that the investigation so far had not established any fraud committed by Khedkar, instead revealing shortcomings within the authority.

Opposition to Anticipatory Bail

The Delhi Police and UPSC strongly opposed the anticipatory bail petition. Delhi Police argued that it was crucial to interrogate Khedkar in custody to uncover other individuals involved in the crime. The police also raised concerns about the lack of examination of electronic evidence in the case. Furthermore, Delhi Police counsel pointed to alleged discrepancies in Khedkar’s name across different attempts at the examination and questioned the validity of her disability certificate.

UPSC, in its response, accused Khedkar of attempting to manipulate the judicial system by submitting a false affidavit. The commission argued that the intention behind her false statement seemed to be an attempt to secure a favorable order by misleading the court.

As the case progresses, the Supreme Court’s upcoming hearings will be pivotal in determining whether Khedkar will be granted anticipatory bail and the subsequent direction of the investigation into the allegations against her.