'Not Everything Online Is Genuine': Gujarat High Court On Public Service Commission Using Unverified Internet Source To Set Exam Question

The Gujarat High Court has directed the State Public Service Commission (GPSC) to grant marks to candidate who had questioned the correctness of a question-answer on Kautilya's Arthashastra asked in the written recruitment exam paper for Sales Tax Inspector, noting that it was based on unauthenticated material. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 222]

In doing so the court said that if any question based on unauthenticated material or a reference book derived or downloaded from Internet is questioned by the student or the candidate appearing in the examination, in that case, the "benefit must go to the student and not to the Examining body".

The candidate had fallen short of 1-mark to qualify GPSC's written recruitment exam and had questioned the answer key arguing that it was incorrect.

The GPSC had argued that in cases where widely recognized and time-tested classical works are involved, such as the text “Arthashastra” attributed to Kautilya, the subject matter is not dependent on any specific edition or version, but on broadly accepted academic understanding of the work. It had said that 1915 edition of the book in question is widely available online and has given the sources of the book which can be accessed from. The court had asked the counsel to provide the downloaded version of 1915 Edition of Kautilya Arthasastra which was translated into English by Author R. Shamasastry. 

The question in the exam over which the dispute arose is the following:

'Please take into consideration the below-mentioned sentences from the book written by Kautilya named Arthashastra:

1.This book was written in Sanskrit language.

2.This book is of economics.

From the above, which sentence/sentences are correct?

A. Only one. B. Only two. C. One and two both. D. None of the above'. 

Perusing the book Justice Nirzar S Desai said that the book is a compendium of 15 different books which is considered to be Arthasastra. Thus, Arthashastra is made as a compendium of almost all the Arthasastras, which, in view of acquisition and maintenance of the earth, have been composed by ancient teachers. 

"The above sentence would indicate that according to Kautilay, as it can be seen from the book itself, the Arthasastra itself is a very wide subject and there are various kinds of Arthasastra and, therefore, Kautilya's Arthasastra is actually a compendium of 15 different books which the Kautilya called as Kautilya's Arthasastra...The above paragraph itself would indicate that Kautilya had given Arthasastra a very wide meaning and, therefore, the downloaded book is a compendium of 15 different books translated from Kautilya's original Arthasastra. Now, in view of that, the credibility of downloaded version raises two doubts that the translated version is translated from original book written by Kautilya in Sanskrit or, a translation in English from any other translated version in any other langugage of Kautilya's Arthasastra because as per the reply given by GPSC, Kautilya's Arthasastra was written in Sanskrit and in view of the fact that there is an ambiguity about whether the translated version is translated from the original book preserved in any Government Library or elsewhere or is a translated version from the copy of the book". 

The court observed that as the book can be downloaded from the Internet from various sources as stated in GPSC's affidavit, then even if it is believed without admitting that the translated version was the correct translation of the original version, then also, in absence of there being any original book available to compare the PDF version with the original book, the same cannot be considered to be an authenticated version of the original one

The court said that GPSC had not approached Government Press, Bangalore to get the original copy and to compare the downloaded version with the original copy, though last line of the book states that the book was published by Government Press, Bangalore.

"Therefore, in absence of there being any attempt made by the GPSC to prove the authenticity of the material relied upon by the Paper-setter, the downloaded version of the book cannot be termed as authentic downloaded version of the original book. Hence, any questions if asked from a reference material which is unauthenticated, and if such answer key is based on some reference book downloaded from internet, but not authenticated, in such cases, the benefit of such ambiguity must go in favour of the student or the candidate appeared in the examination, as the case may be," the court held. 

Justice Desai said that internet is an ocean of information however not everything on it can be called genuine material. Therefore, though relying upon some material from the internet, may not be completely impermissible, but its credibility cannot be endorsed in absence of there being any specific written policy to authenticate the reference material on the basis of which a question is asked in the examination.

The court said that ordinarily it would not interfere with the answer provided by the Examining Body but when the GPSC themselves stated on oath that "there is no policy in writing to authenticate the downloaded reference material and the correct answer of the question is debatable", in such case the benefit of such question must go to the candidate. 

The court also said that the Papersetter / Examining Body has asked the disputed question in the examination from an Edition downloaded from the Internet from a book which was allegedly originally published in 1915 i.e. over 100 years before the examination was conducted in 2023.

The court said that meanwhile subsequent editions of the aforesaid reference book may also be available considering that Kautilya's Arthasastra is a widely popular book and court had reason to believe so as in the  GCERT / NCERT books also, there are references of the aforesaid book, the latest edition of the book may be edited or translated by different Author, but at least in that case that book is easily available in the market.

The court thus questioned that when the latest version of the book is available, can GPSC's act of asking a question from a downloaded edition allegedly published 100 years ago can be termed reasonable.

Answering this the court said,

"According to me, these competitive examinations are meant to test the general knowledge, general awareness and aptitude of the candidates. The question was not a part of main exam of any specialized subject and, therefore, considering the fact that the upper age limit to appear in the examination in such kind of exams are usually 35 years or around that, it was absolutely unreasonable on the part of the respondent authority to ask a question from an edition for which the physical authenticated original copy is not available even with the respondent itself and to expect the candidates to sail through the ocean of internet and to read the books or its editions available on internet was absolutely unreasonable and hence, such unreasonability can not be endorsed or permitted"

The court said that while there wasn't a complete bar in asking a question from the material downloaded from internet, but if such question is asked, in that case, the authenticity of material downloaded from the internet must not be questionable and a physical copy of the original material/book must be available either with the Examining Body or Paper-setter in absence of any written policy on authentication of source material.

The Examining Body is expected to ask the questions from the books or material which is usually available in the region, the court added. 

The court said that in view of all these reasons the candidate's answer can be said to be correct. It thus directed GPSC not to deduct the marks, or if deducted reverse the deduction and grant her marks for the question in dispute and thereafter include the petitioner's name in the select list or waiting list.

Case title: ARATI DAMJIBHAI RANGPARIYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3425 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 222

Appearance :

MS MEGHA JANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MR MIT S THAKKAR for the Petitioner.

MR GURSHARANSINGH H VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ASSISTED BY MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Respondent No.1.

MR GURSHARANSINGH H VIRK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ASSISTED BY MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI for the Respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order