Witch hunt over sexual harassment complaint, says trainee IAS Puja Khedkar; UPSC contends she abused law

Khedkar alleged before Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala that a case was being lodged against her because she filed a sexual harassment complaint against the Pune collector. She said the media had indulged in a witch hunt against her. “I (Khedkar) filed a complaint for sexual harassment and that is why all this is being done against me,” her counsel Bina Madhavan argued.

“…she has a permanent benchmark disability and the percentage of disability in relation to her body is 47 per cent,” said Madhavan as she placed a disability certificate by a board of AIIMS to show Khedkar was a candidate with multiple disabilities before the court.

“Why is UPSC doing all this against her? Because she is a woman? Because she is a disabled person?” asked Madhavan.

However, Madhavan also submitted that the allegation of withholding of information related to attempts by Khedkar was to be enquired by UPSC. “The only allegation against me is that I have withheld information about attempts. I wrote 5 but I should have said 12,” she said.

Both Delhi Police and UPSC argued that custodial interrogation was required as the matter had to be investigated seriously as Khedkar had “breached the integrity of the system.”

During the hearing, the court questioned Khedkar’s counsel regarding her claim that she had been permitted by the Delhi High Court to sit for the exam again. Madhavan stated that Khedkar had been permitted by interim orders passed by the Delhi High Court to take the additional attempts.

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 informed by the counsel representing UPSC.

Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava, appearing for the Delhi Police, said Khedkar had intentionally changed her name to dupe the UPSC and that she had not informed anyone about the number of attempts she gave. “Is this not a serious concealment of facts?” asked Srivastava.

“The act of suppression took place at every instance – before the DoPT, UPSC, and Courts. This person has abused the law and process of law. The chances of her abusing the law are still there. She is a resourceful person,” said Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik representing the UPSC.

Srivastava, on the other hand, alleged that Khedkar claimed that her parents were divorced to overcome the hurdle of creamy layer exclusion that exists under the OBC Category.

The court, however, questioned the need to arrest Khedkar at this stage and asked the prosecution whether the case was one of forgery of documents. “If your investigation is at a nascent stage, then why are you in such a hurry to arrest her?” asked ASJ Jangala.

The court also pulled up UPSC. “Is it the failure of UPSC to allow this to happen or the over-expertise of the applicant?” the court asked Kaushik.

While opposing her bail plea, Srivastava also said that Khedkar would not cooperate with the police if she is granted anticipatory bail.

The court reserved the order on her anticipatory bail plea.