GPSC question and disputed answer key: Does Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ not speak of economics? Gujarat High Court witnesses debate

The two sentences to be considered were: the book was written in Sanskrit language and second, that it deals with the concept of economics. While the petitioner had chosen the option stating that both the sentences about the textbook were correct, the official answer key of the GPSC marked the option as wrong, stating that the only correct sentence was that the book was written in Sanskrit.

The petition contends that Arthashashtra delves in the aspects of economy and fiscal management among other subjects and therefore, both sentences in the question paper were correct.

On Tuesday, Government Pleader G H Virk appeared before the court, as directed by the court on April 2, and submitted a fresh affidavit from the GPSC, answering the questions raised by the HC in its March 20 order. The affidavit considered on April 2 was found to be dissatisfactory, prompting the court to warn of contempt proceedings against GPSC officials.

GPSC’s fresh affidavit

In his submissions from the GPSC affidavit, the Government Pleader told the court, “The question in issue was framed by the paper setter based on his academic understanding of the subject. The paper setter had relied on a digital PDF version of the source material, available with him as part of his academic resources. As regards where the paper setter had downloaded the PDF copy of the book, the respondent commission is not aware. It is clarified that the physical copy of the said book is not available with the commission. The PDF copy of the book concerned was received by the commission from the paper setter as a supporting document to the final answer key for the final question…”

The GPSC informed the court that it “does not have a written policy governing the authentication of material relied upon by the candidate or the paper setter.” The Government Pleader submitted that academic expertise is the basis of authenticating information in absence of a written policy.

“In absence of any written policy, what is the basis for treating the book as authentic… The Commission relied on the academic expertise of the respective paper setters and experts appointed by this honourable court. In the present matter, the PDF copies… were sent to experts… to evaluate the correctness of the question and the final answer… Similarly, when candidates rely on materials to justify their objections, those materials are also forwarded to the paper setters. The examination process is structured around reliance on domain experts, who frame and evaluate questions on the basis of standard academic sources and accepted knowledge within the discipline,” Virk submitted.

The GPSC also stated that in case of classic literary works or text books “broadly accepted academic understanding of the work” is considered. “In cases where time-tested and widely recognised classical works are involved, such as the text Arthashastra attributed to Kautilya, the subject matter is not dependent on a specific edition or version but on the broadly accepted academic understanding of the work. Such texts are consistently referred to across educational curricula and scholarly material and their core content remains substantially uniform. In the present case, the correctness of the answer has been examined and confirmed by experts, including the neutral expert appointed under the orders of this court,” the GPSC submitted.

What petitioner’s advocate said

Senior Advocate Megha Jani, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that from the submissions made on record by the GPSC, the “remarks” shown as “made by an expert” appointed to opine on the disputed question mentions that Arthashastra was a compilation of statecraft, economic policy, governance, law, taxation, Rajdharma (ruler’s obligation towards his subjects), public welfare, and the importance of material wealth through trade and other fiscal strategies that were mandatory for a functional state.

Jani also submitted textbooks of the Gujarat Council of Educational Research and Training as well as National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) matched with the answer of the petitioner, and contended that the GPSC had cited a different source that had not been specified or authenticated. Jani said, “There is no source of the book produced… When the (court) directed them to produce the source (in previous orders), they filed an affidavit on March 18, where they sought to justify… the PDF is available across open source websites… A textbook of Class XI with a chapter on Arthashastra in Gujarat speaks of economics as a policy and strategy… This book is a book about economics… they are not asking (in the disputed question) if it is only about economics… In their own affidavit they have admitted that economics is part of (Arthashastra) but not limited to economics. By that admission alone, my petition should be allowed.”

Jani also pointed out that the GPSC has listed open source websites like Slideshare and e-commerce platform Amazon as the sources for the 1915 edition of Arthashastra– the digital PDF of which has been cited as the resource material used by the paper setter for the disputed question.

HC: Are you making attempts to prove Kautilya wrong?

Following the oral submissions by both sides, the court inquired with the GPSC pleader if Arthashashtra was a compilation of 15 books or 15 chapters, including portions on economics. Justice Desai, orally enquired, “Is Arthashastra a compilation of 15 books of multiple chapters on different subjects?… Your question was not that this is a book exclusively on economics, then your (GPSC) answer key would have been correct… When economics is one of the subjects of the books… you are making attempts to prove Kautilya wrong…”

The court has directed the petitioner to make submissions in writing, following the fresh submissions made by the Government Pleader on Tuesday. Virk had also requested the court to allow the Commission to withdraw its affidavits of March 2, 18 and April 1.

Earlier in March, the High Court had asked GPSC to submit the original text and source from where the question and the answer key were framed and thereafter directed the GPSC to explain whether the book from which the question and the answer key were framed was an authenticated source or not.

On April 2, dissatisfied with the GPSC affidavit in context to the questions raised by the HC, Justice Desai had warned of contempt proceedings against GPSC officials and directed the Government Pleader to remain present on April 7 to provide the answers to the court.

The court will next hear the matter on April 16.