Why in the News
The Constitution lets a State Public Service Commission (PSC) member be removed only after a Supreme Court inquiry, yet Keralam’s PSC now faces removal on a Governor’s recommendation made before any such inquiry. Days before moving to Tamil Nadu, former Keralam Governor Rajendra Arlekar recommended that the President remove PSC chairperson M R Baiju and other members, and dissolve the entire commission.
How can a State PSC member be removed?
- State PSC: A State PSC is the constitutional body that recruits State government staff through examinations and interviews. Its independence matters because it decides who enters the State’s civil service.
- Appointment: PSC members are appointed under Article 316 of the Constitution for a term of six years.
- Removal procedure: Under Article 317, the President alone can remove a State PSC chairperson or member. The President must first refer the allegations to the Supreme Court for an inquiry.
- Court finding first: The President can order removal only if the Court’s report supports it. It works like a trial before a sentence, so no appointing authority can remove members at will.
- The takeaway: The procedure protects the commission from political pressure, so a recommendation that skips the inquiry is itself contested.
What allegations preceded the recommendation?
- Recruitment allegations: The Keralam PSC faces allegations of irregularities in recruitments conducted during the previous Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) government.
- Police inquiry: The State Crime Branch is probing alleged malpractices in recruitment for a key post at the State Planning Board.
- Internal inquiry: In June 2026, an internal PSC inquiry found serious lapses in the evaluation process, allegedly benefiting a CPI(M)-affiliated candidate.
- Petitions to the Governor: Two groups petitioned the Governor to remove the chairperson and members:
- the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh;
- the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, the youth wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
- Wider complaints: Other recruitments by the current PSC also face allegations of political interference and favouritism.
Why has the recommendation drawn objections?
- Timing of the move: The Governor left Keralam on October 22, a day before Om Prakash Mathur succeeded him. The recommendation came just before that exit.
- Legality challenge: The Leader of the Opposition, a former Chief Minister, called the move “illegal” and a continuation of the Governor’s “illegal interference” in the State. Without a Supreme Court probe, he argued, the Governor had no right to recommend removal.
- State government bypassed: Keralam’s Revenue Minister said the Governor acted without informing the State government or taking it into confidence.
- Constitutional propriety: The Minister did not defend the PSC members. He called a hasty recommendation during a live police probe contrary to “constitutional propriety”.
- Support for the move: The BJP State president called it “a severe setback” to the Congress government’s bid to “shield CPI(M)’s alleged malpractices” in the PSC.
Challenges
- Inquiry bypassed: A removal sought before any Supreme Court inquiry sits uneasily with the Article 317 safeguard.
- Centre-State friction: A Governor acting without the State government’s knowledge deepens distrust between the Governor’s office (Lok Bhavan) and the elected government.
- Pending probe: A removal decision taken before the police probe concludes risks pre-judging its outcome.
- Credibility of recruitment: Unresolved allegations erode candidates’ trust in the commission’s examinations.
Way Forward
- Article 317 reference: The President should refer the allegations to the Supreme Court before acting on the recommendation.
- Time-bound probe: The State Crime Branch should complete its inquiry and place its findings on record.
- Consultation norm: Governors should inform the State government before recommending action against a constitutional body in the State.
- Evaluation audit: The PSC should publish independent audits of its evaluation process to restore candidate confidence.
Conclusion
The dispute turns on whether recruitment allegations, however serious, can justify removal without the inquiry the Constitution prescribes. The President’s response, and whether a Supreme Court reference follows, is the next step to watch.
Matching Previous Year Question
“No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2025] Consider the following statements: I. The Constitution of India explicitly mentions that in certain spheres the Governor of a State acts in his/her own discretion. II. The President of India can, of his/her own, reserve a bill passed by a State Legislature for his/her consideration without it being forwarded by the Governor of the State concerned. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) I only (b) II only (c) Both I and II (d) Neither I nor II ANSWER: (a)”
