'Doesn't Answer Our Question, Nothing But Contempt': Gujarat High Court Slams Public Service Commission's Affidavit In Arthashastra Question Row

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (April 2) orally remarked that the affidavit filed by the officers of State Public Service Commission over the Arthashastra question row, was "nothing but contempt" as it did not answer the specific queries posed by the court in its previous order. 

The court was hearing a matter wherein 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. 

For context on March 20 the court had said that the Gujarat Public Service Commission's earlier affidavit with respect to source of the question on Kautilya's Arthashastra posed in its recruitment exam last year, appeared to be an "eyewash" as it did not disclose whether the pdf version of the book–from which the question was framed–relied upon by GPSC was authenticated or not. The court had directed the GPSC to state whether there exists any policy for authenticating downloaded material; if no such policy exists, to state the basis on which the book, which was stated to be the basis of the question, was treated as authenticated.

When the matter was taken up in the first session, as the counsel for GPSC handed over the affidavit Justice Nirzar S Desai after perusing it orally said:

"My order was very specific. What I have asked has not been answered. This is nothing but contempt according to me. I propose to issue contempt against your Secretary and Chairman both...My order was very specific on March 20. But before that whom would you prefer to address the court learned Government Pleader (GP) or learned Advocate General (AG)". 

It further orally said, "Is it a matter of poor understanding of your Chairman and Secretary or is it a matter of come what may we will do what we want to do? Which kind of mindset does it reflect?".

Meanwhile senior advocate Megha Jani appearing for the candidate submitted that the earlier order of March 16 had not been complied with and the court had granted one more opportunity to effect complaince. 

The court thereafter orally said, "So does it reflect poor understanding on the part of your Chairman and Secretary? Or it reflects their mentality that they are above court irrespective of how many times the court keeps asking them, they will not file an affidavit as per courts orders? Why shouldnt I issue contempt against them?". 

As the counsel for GPSC sought for listing the matter after day or two, the court orally questioned the counsel asking had the court not given sufficient time to the commission to respond. 

The court again asked as to whom it should ask to appear in the matter–the AG or the GP; the counsel stated that the GP maybe asked to appear.

As the counsel attempted to assist the court on its query, the court further orally said, "If your intention was to assist, the affidavit that is being thrown at the court would have been as per order passed by court on (March) 16 & 20...Affidavit which doesn't need place in file is being thrown at the court...are you agreeable that I should issue contempt to both of them? Either they admit they have a poor understanding of courts order, they are not capable to understand what the court wanted them to state on oath. Or they may say that they have understood everything but they are so stubborn and headstrong that come what may they dont want to file affidavit as per court's orders. Which version would you like to propagate?". 

The counsel sought to read the court's orders and GPSC's affidavit and submitted, "We are saying that this is not in our domain".

The court then questioned why and asked as to who was conducting the examination. To this the GPSC's counsel submitted, "We are responsible for administrative set up. The subject expert would set up the question papers".

Remarking that the commission cannot run away from its responsibility, the court orally said, "Where is the specific clause or provision that your responsibility is limitted only to this extent? Then place it on record. State on oath that you are not responsible...File an affidavit that it doesnt come within your domain". 

As the court asked the counsel as to when should the matter be kept the counsel sought time for two weeks. To this the court orally said, "Not two weeks….2:30pm come with affidavit. You are saying that you are running an organization which is so big that it takes 200 exams a year means almost one exam every alternate day, and you are incapable of taking responsibility on your shoulder?". 

The counsel meanwhile said that in today's affidavit it had stated that "it is not within domain of Commission to determine correctness of the answers or authenticate the material referred to". 

To this the court orally said, "Then for what are you heading the commission? You just want to enjoy powers without any responsibilty?". As the counsel urged that the paper setters would be subject experts the court asked as to what was the source to say that "this will be within domain of Chairman & Secretary and this will be domain in paper setter". The court further asked if the Commission had any policy on the distribution of work. 

The counsel thereafter said, "I have understood the question. I'll take those instructions". 

The court orally said, "You just want to enjoy power, play with future of candidates. But when it comes to responsibility you just raise your hands". 

As the counsel submitted that they were ready to answer the court orally said, "Readiness shown after 3 orders. You are not doing any charity". 

The counsel suibmitted that they were "duty bound". The court however orally said, "Duty bound in only words not in action. Had you been conscious and serious about your duty I would not have passed 2 orders directing you to file affidavit on specific point and still you are saying that you have not understood it properly". 

Meanwhile the court further said that since GP had appeared in the matter it owes a duty to hear him as well before contempt is issued.

Meanwhile the Counsel said, "Regarding enhancement of span of blacklisting, I personally had a word. They are ready my lords". The court however said, "They are not ready to listen to anyone except their ego...I had a different impression before 3 months. You didn't leave any stone unturned in spoiling your impression".

As GPSC's counsel submitted that they may be permitted to improve the impression before the court, the court orally said, "No you don't require any. Because you are above the court, thats what you are beleiving. Had slightest morality remained in any of your officers this affidavit would not have come. Their mindset is that they are not before court...They feel, court also will go before them with some request". 

The court had thereafter listed the matter in the post lunch session at 2:30pm. In the post lunch session the court was informed that the Government pleader is in another matter which is ongoing.  At that stage the court had said that it shall keep the matter, and if the Government Pleader appears before the court rises for the day, it shall call the counsel for GPSC. 

Thereafter as the court was about to rise for the day, the court was informed that the Government Pleader is not available and requested that the matter be kept on April 7. The court thus listed the matter on April 7 at 11 am, and said that till it hears the GP, the "client (GPSC) may not remain present". The court said that if required it will call the GPSC officials at 2:30pm on April 7. 

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'.

In an earlier hearing when the court had asked the counsel for the respondent to produce the original book from which the aforesaid question was framed, he had upon instructions, stated that the original book is not available with the respondents and that only a PDF copy of the book is available. When the court asked that from where the PDF copy was downloaded, the counsel was not in a position to state the source from which the said PDF copy of the book was downloaded, the order noted. 

The court had thus directed the Secretary, GPSC to file an affidavit to state whether, when the original source is not available, if it would be permissible to frame questions from a book, the physical copy of which is not available and the source from which the PDF copy was downloaded is also not available.

If such practice is permissible, it shall also be clarified how the authenticity of such book is to be determined, the court had asked. The court had further asked the respondent to state whether the book is widely available and, if a physical copy is available, from which edition the above question was selected.

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

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3425 of 2025