The Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 21, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to Puja Khedkar, a former IAS trainee officer embroiled in a case concerning the alleged submission of forged Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) certificates to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, questioned the severity of the allegations against Khedkar, asking, "Has she committed murder?".

Khedkar is accused of misusing quotas to clear the Civil Services Examination (CSE). The UPSC filed an FIR against her, also issuing a show cause notice regarding the cancellation of her selection and barring her from future examinations. The core allegation is that she fraudulently availed attempts beyond the permissible limit by faking her identity, including changing her name.

In December 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed Khedkar's anticipatory bail plea, stating that she was prima facie not a fit candidate to avail benefits meant for disadvantaged groups and had been forging documents. The High Court suggested her actions were part of a larger conspiracy to manipulate the system and that granting her bail would affect the investigation.

However, the Supreme Court took a different view. It had granted Khedkar interim protection from arrest in January 2025, which was extended on March 18. On Wednesday, the court made the interim bail absolute. The court noted that the High Court should have granted her anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the offenses and the case's circumstances. The Supreme Court directed that in the event of arrest, Khedkar be released on bail upon furnishing a cash surety of ₹25,000 with two live sureties.

The Supreme Court bench rejected the argument presented by the State Counsel that Khedkar was not cooperating with the investigation, despite appearing before the authorities, and that the allegations against her were serious enough to deny her relief. The counsel emphasized that Khedkar had exceeded the number of attempts allowed in the UPSC exam by submitting fake certificates.

While granting bail, the Supreme Court directed Khedkar to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation, not misuse her liberty, and refrain from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The prosecution retains the right to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail if any of these conditions are violated.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court orally remarked on the nature of the accusations against Khedkar. The bench questioned what grave crime Khedkar had committed, observing that she was neither a drug lord nor a terrorist, nor had she committed murder. The court also pointed out that Khedkar had already lost everything and would likely not find employment anywhere.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented Khedkar in the proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously turned down Delhi Police's request for custodial interrogation to investigate a "larger scam" of fake documents submitted by UPSC candidates.