Gujarat high court calls GPSC affidavit an ‘eyewash’ in Arthashastra question row | Ahmedabad News

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court on Friday pulled up the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) for filing an affidavit that “appears to be merely an eyewash” in explaining its policy for authenticating information downloaded from the internet for framing questions in its exams.This was with regard to the HC’s earlier demand to the GPSC to produce the original book of Kautilya’s “Arthashastra” in its 1915 English translation, from which the commission claimed to have framed the question asked in an exam last year. The correctness of the answer is in dispute before the HC, as one of the candidates, who required one more mark to clear the test, challenged the answer key published by the GPSC. On March 16, the GPSC could not produce the 1915 edition of “Arthashastra”, and instead supplied a PDF that was downloaded from the internet. The HC sought an affidavit from the GPSC secretary explaining “when the original source is not available, 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”. In response, the GPSC secretary filed an affidavit, on which Justice Nirzar Desai said, “The affidavit dated March 18, 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 March 16, 2026.” The HC directed the GPSC secretary to file “a detailed and specific affidavit addressing the queries posed to GPSC vide order dated March 16, 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 HC once again sought clarification on “whether there exists any policy for authenticating material downloaded from the website. If no such policy exists, the basis on which the said book (Kautilya’s “Arthashastra”) is being treated as authenticated shall be clearly explained”. Further hearing is posted on April 2.