Ex-Governor seeks removal of Kerala PSC chief: what Article 317 actually requires

The removal of a PSC chairperson: what happened?

A State Public Service Commission fills most State government posts, so its credibility matters to lakhs of candidates. Here an outgoing Governor has reportedly written to the President to remove the Commission’s chief, and the Constitution’s own procedure has become the centre of the fight.

• Former Keralam Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar reportedly recommended to the President the removal of Kerala Public Service Commission chairperson M.R. Baiju over alleged irregularities.
• The recommendation became public a few days after he left the State; he was succeeded by Om Prakash Mathur. The letter went to President Droupadi Murmu a week before he was relieved.
• A Crime Branch investigation into alleged irregularities in the Commission’s examination for certain posts in the State Planning Board is in progress.
• The CPI(M) called the move “unconstitutional”; Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan said no Supreme Court inquiry had been held. Most UDF Ministers backed the move, but Revenue Minister A.P. Anil Kumar called it a “constitutional impropriety”.

What is a State Public Service Commission?

• A constitutional body (Article 315) that conducts recruitment examinations and advises on service matters (Article 320).
• Members: appointed by the Governor; at least half must have held office under the Government for ten years or more (Article 316).
• Term: six years or till age 62. Article 319: on ceasing office, a State PSC chairperson cannot take other government employment, but can become chairperson or member of the UPSC or chairperson of another State PSC.
• A Joint State PSC for two or more States can be set up by a law of Parliament on a resolution of the State legislatures.

What does Article 317 say about removal?

• Article 317(1): the chairperson or a member can be removed by order of the President on the ground of misbehaviour, after the Supreme Court, on a reference by the President, has held an inquiry and reported that the person ought to be removed.
• Article 317(2): in the case of a State Commission, the Governor may suspend the member while the reference is pending.
• Article 317(3): the President may also remove a member who is adjudged insolvent, takes up paid employment outside the office, or is unfit due to infirmity of mind or body.

Why does the removal of a PSC chairperson matter?

What are the challenges in the removal of a PSC chairperson?

• Due process: a recommendation without a Supreme Court reference has no legal effect for misbehaviour.
• Timing: a move made just before leaving office invites charges of politics.
• Split government: Ministers in the same Cabinet took opposite views.

What should be done next on the removal of a PSC chairperson?

• If there is a case, the President can refer the charge to the Supreme Court under Article 317(1).
• Complete the Crime Branch investigation quickly and publish findings.
• Make PSC examinations more transparent to restore trust.

What can Prelims ask on the removal of a PSC chairperson?

• Article 315: PSCs for Union and States; Article 316: appointment and term.
• Article 317: removal by the President; Supreme Court inquiry for misbehaviour.
• Governor may suspend a State PSC member during the reference (Article 317(2)).
• State PSC term: six years or 62 years of age.
• Joint PSC: by a law of Parliament, on request of State legislatures.

How to write about the removal of a PSC chairperson in Mains

Practice question (10 marks, 150 words): Public Service Commissions are appointed by the Governor but can be removed only by the President after a Supreme Court inquiry. Examine the reasons for this design in the light of the recent controversy in Keralam.

• Intro: the reported recommendation and the Opposition’s objection.
• Provisions: Articles 315-317; tenure and safeguards.
• Why the design: independence, insulation from State politics, judicial finding of misbehaviour.
• Concerns: misuse of the Governor’s office, slow probes, credibility of exams.
• Way forward: Article 317 reference if needed; transparent exams.