Noting that the two sides had agreed not to make public the plea discussions, her lawyer Daniel Arshack gave a strong rejoinder to Bharara who had written to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn stating that he had outlined reasonable parameters that could resolve the issue.
"We can only think that the violation of that agreement is a distressingly calculated one," Arshack said.
With the deadline for her indictment slated for January 13, the diplomat had sought one-month extension, saying the "pressure of the impending" date is interfering with the ability of the parties to have meaningful discussions.
But her plea has been opposed by the prosecution.
India has been demanding the withdrawal of the case against Khobragade and an apology from the US for the treatment meted out to the 39-year-old diplomat, including a strip search and detention with criminals after her arrest on December 12.
India-born US prosecutor Bharara's office is required to file charges against the diplomat within 30 days of her arrest.
The US said last month it is proceeding with the prosecution of Khobragade and has no intention of withdrawing the case.
At the time of her arrest, Khobragade was Deputy Consul General in New York and was subsequently transferred to India's Permanent Mission to the UN.
A 1999-batch IFS officer, Khobragade was arrested on charges of making false declarations in a visa application for her maid Sangeeta Richard. She was released on a USD 250,000 bond.
India retaliated by downgrading privileges of a certain category of US diplomats among other steps last month.
Bharara said his office has been receptive to continuing the plea discussions that have been taking place with the diplomat over the past several weeks.
He said his office has participated in "hours of discussion in the hope of negotiating a plea" that could be entered in court before January 13.
Arshack voiced his displeasure with Bharara giving details of the plea discussions in a letter he submitted to Netburn.
"We are surprised and distressed that the prosecution has elected to publicly characterise the discussions that have taken place in the manner in which they have. Indeed, the agreed upon ground rules of the communications we have had to date were that no public characterisation of the discussions would be made.
"We can only think that the violation of that agreement is a distressingly calculated one. It must be noted that we strongly disagree with their characterisation and we hope that the prosecution will not unilaterally take any further steps which will further polarise the situation," Arshack said.
He said it is "precisely the desire" to avoid further polarisation that he is asking the federal court to extend the time within which the prosecution must either indict or be ready for a preliminary hearing.
Arshack said his client is herself asking for extension of the deadline since the date itself is "interfering" with the possibility of an "early, expeditious and judicially economical resolution.
"Repeatedly, the prosecution has explained that the existence of the January 13, 2014 deadline was driving its determination to immediately seek an indictment. We have made this application to extend the time period because we wish to eliminate the pressure on the situation and permit the efforts which are ongoing to resolve this matter, both between the parties to this criminal litigation and elsewhere to move forward," Arshack added.