Former Keralam Governor Arlekar recommends President to remove PSC chairperson; Opposition LDF calls move unconstitutional

Former Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar reportedly recommended removing Kerala Public Service Commission chairperson M.R. Baiju. He sent the communication to President Droupadi Murmu about a week before being relieved as Governor. The recommendation became public only days after Arlekar left Kerala.

The stated basis was alleged irregularities in the PSC’s functioning. The article links the development to a Crime Branch investigation into alleged irregularities in a PSC examination for certain State Planning Board posts. It does not provide further details about the allegations against Baiju personally.

The recommendation has triggered a constitutional dispute. Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan called it unlawful and said Article 317 requires a Supreme Court inquiry before removal for misbehaviour. The controversy now concerns whether the recommendation can proceed and whether the existing PSC could be dissolved.

A Public Service Commission is an independent public recruitment body. Its basic role is to help fill government posts through formal examinations and selection procedures. This creates a common process for identifying eligible candidates rather than leaving appointments entirely to individual departments or political authorities.

In Kerala, the PSC is the State recruitment body described in the article. It conducts examinations for government-related posts, including posts connected with the State Planning Board. The article also refers to the PSC as a commission whose chairperson and members receive constitutional protection under Article 317.

The Kerala PSC matters because its decisions affect public recruitment across the State. Alleged irregularities can therefore raise questions about examination fairness and institutional credibility. The current dispute also asks whether the body’s leadership can be removed without the constitutional safeguards that govern PSC appointments and removals.

The alleged irregularities concern a Kerala PSC examination for certain posts in the State Planning Board. The article says a Crime Branch investigation is currently progressing. However, it does not identify the exact acts under investigation, the examination stage involved, or the people allegedly responsible.

That missing detail is important. A recruitment irregularity could involve different parts of an examination process, but the source does not say which part was affected. It also does not report an investigation finding, a charge, or a conclusion that the examination was invalid.

The investigation forms the immediate background to Arlekar’s recommendation against PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju. Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the move, saying it treated a single recruitment instance as a reason to undermine the entire commission. The investigation’s eventual findings could clarify what happened, but no outcome is given.

Two constitutional provisions are central to the dispute: Articles 163 and 317. Together, they frame both the Governor’s authority and the procedure for removing members of a Public Service Commission. Their importance comes from the conflict between executive action and institutional independence.

Article 163 is cited as requiring the Governor to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Article 317 addresses the removal of a PSC chairperson or member. According to the article, removal for misbehaviour requires a Supreme Court inquiry and report recommending removal.

Pinarayi Vijayan argues that neither route was followed in this case. He says the former Governor had no independent authority to make the recommendation and that the Council of Ministers also could not bypass the Article 317 procedure. The dispute therefore concerns both constitutional advice and removal safeguards.

Article 317 sets a special procedure for removing a Public Service Commission chairperson or member for misbehaviour. The President cannot simply order removal after receiving an allegation or recommendation. The constitutional safeguard requires an inquiry by the Supreme Court first.

After that inquiry, the Supreme Court must report that the chairperson or member should be removed. Only then can the President act on removal for misbehaviour, according to the procedure described in the article. This places an independent judicial finding between an allegation and the final decision.

Pinarayi Vijayan says no such Supreme Court inquiry has been conducted regarding Kerala PSC members. He therefore argues that the former Governor had no constitutional authority to make the recommendation. The article does not report that a Supreme Court inquiry or removal report exists.

The immediate risk would be damage to confidence in Kerala’s recruitment system. The PSC handles examinations and selections, so a disputed removal or dissolution could make candidates question whether recruitment decisions are independent and properly protected. The article describes this broader concern as an attempt to undermine institutional autonomy.

The key mechanism is constitutional procedure. Article 317 requires a Supreme Court inquiry and report before removal for misbehaviour. If that safeguard were bypassed, a recommendation or executive action could set a precedent for changing the recruitment body without the required process. The article does not state that dissolution has occurred.

Pinarayi Vijayan warned that using the Governor’s move to dissolve the existing PSC could reflect political partisanship and prejudice. He said supporting such action could promote authoritarian tendencies. The next issue is whether the government will oppose the move or support it directly or indirectly.

Public Service Commissions need protection from political interference because they oversee access to government employment. If political authorities could freely remove a chairperson or member, recruitment decisions might become vulnerable to pressure, favouritism, or retaliation. Constitutional safeguards help preserve an independent process.

Article 317 provides one such safeguard by requiring a Supreme Court inquiry and report before removal for misbehaviour. Article 163 is also part of this dispute because it concerns the Governor acting with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. These rules limit unilateral action and place decisions within defined procedures.

That structure supports merit-based recruitment by protecting the examination body’s credibility. Candidates are more likely to trust selections when rules apply consistently and leadership cannot be changed arbitrarily. The article’s controversy shows why institutional autonomy matters, especially when allegations arise from a single recruitment examination.