'Appears To Be Eyewash': Gujarat High Court On State Public Service Commission's Affidavit Over Arthashastra Question Row
The Gujarat High Court on Friday (March 20) said that State Public Service Commission's 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 relied upon by GPSC was authenticated or not. The court further directed the Gujarat Public...
The Gujarat High Court on Friday (March 20) said that State Public Service Commission's 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 relied upon by GPSC was authenticated or not.
The court further directed the Gujarat Public Service Commission 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.
After hearing the matter Justice Nirzar S Desai in his order said:
"The affidavit dated 18.03.2026 is completely silent on how the PDF version can be considered an authenticated version. It is also silent on whether any policy exists for authenticating such material. The affidavit filed by the Secretary of GPSC appears to be merely an eyewash, particularly when considered in light of the earlier order passed by this Court on 16th March, 2026. With a view to granting an opportunity, the Secretary,GPSC, is directed to file a detailed and specific affidavit addressing the queries posed to GPSC vide order dated 16th March, 2026.
The affidavit shall not contain vague or general submissions and must be based strictly on the material or policy available with GPSC, and not on the subjective understanding or thought process of its administrators. The affidavit shall specifically state whether there exists any policy for authenticating material downloaded from the website. If no such policy exists, the basis on which the said book is being treated as authenticated shall be clearly explained".
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. The question 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 the previous 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 last order notes.
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.
During the hearing on Friday after perusing the GPSC's affidavit the court orally asked the GPSC's counsel, "How did you authenticate that (pdf) ?". To which the counsel said, "It is not even their case what we are relying on is not authenticated".
To this the court said,"No no I am asking you. You are supposed to answer. You can't...something which relates back to 1915". The court further asked if there was any policy to authenticate the book or not and thereafter passed the order.
Case title: ARATI DAMJIBHAI RANGPARIYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3425 of 2025