A row over a Constitutional law answer in a Punjab Public Service Commission examination has reached the Centre, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday seeking the assistance of Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain to adjudicate the correctness of the answer key on the disputed question.The Division Bench of Justices Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Amarjot Bhatti directed that the issue surrounding the question be examined with the aid of the Union government after the correctness of the official answer key was challenged.The direction came more than a year after PPSC advertised Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other allied posts to be filled on the basis of Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2025. Among other things, the petitioner candidates had contended that the question pertained to the subject of law. It was, as such, required to be examined by the High Court, being an expert in the field of law.“We are of the considered view that since question is in dispute as to whether the answers given in the key by the Punjab Public Service Commission were correct or not and it pertains to an issue of Constitutional Law, this Court is of the considered view that it will be just and proper to seek assistance of Additional Solicitor-General of India, who may, in turn, also discuss the matter with the appropriateMinistry of the Government of India and give his suitable opinion thereafter,” the Bench asserted.Jain, in turn, submitted that he would get the needful done. He would give his opinion as well as that of the Union Ministry before assisting the Court on the issue.“Additional Solicitor-General of India has submitted that only two weeks may be granted in this regard so that this Court can be assisted on this particular issue. Secretary Examinations, Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, is also present in Court today and has stated that the process of examination is only at the stage of evaluating the answers of the main examinations and interviews are not likely to be held till the next date of hearing,” the Bench observed before fixing the case for May 18The controversy revolved around a multiple-choice question on Constitutional provisions, which asked candidates to assess the correctness of three statements: “No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President”; “No tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law”; and “Parliament can reduce or abolish a tax but cannot increase it.” The candidates were required to indicate how many of these statements were correct, with options ranging from “only one” to “all three” or “none.”