Keralam Assembly: Heated exchanges as Speaker disallows Pinarayi’s submission on ex-Governor’s move to remove PSC chairperson

Speaker Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan refused permission for Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan’s submission about constitutional issues arising from former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar’s recommendation to the President. The recommendation concerned removing Kerala PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju. The Speaker cited Assembly rules barring discussion of matters involving the President or Governor.

Vijayan challenged that reasoning. He recalled that then Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan had allowed a 2020 Opposition resolution urging the President to recall Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. Vijayan also said Article 163, court decisions, and the PSC’s constitutional status made the issue nationally important. Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan warned that the government would have to respond if Vijayan continued after the ruling. Electricity Minister Sunny Joseph backed the Speaker’s position.

The Speaker said the Business Advisory Committee would consider whether the issue could be discussed later. The dispute therefore remains procedurally unresolved, while the Governor’s recommendation continues to fuel political disagreement between the government, Opposition, and CPI(M).

The Kerala Public Service Commission, or PSC, is a constitutional body that conducts recruitment for public services in the State. Its purpose is to help select eligible candidates for government posts through a formal, independent process. The article does not provide a full legal description, but it explicitly calls the PSC a constitutional body and discusses its chairperson, M.R. Baiju.

The chairperson heads the commission and oversees its institutional work, including the functioning of recruitment and selection processes. The article focuses on the proposed action against Baiju rather than listing his exact duties. It says the controversy also involves legal issues concerning the PSC, which is why the Opposition sought an Assembly discussion.

The dispute matters because the recommendation came from the former Governor and was sent to the President. The CPI(M) described the move as unconstitutional, while some ministers called it a constitutional impropriety. The Assembly has not yet debated the matter, pending the Business Advisory Committee’s consideration.

The PSC handles recruitment for public services across the State rather than serving only one government department. In established constitutional practice, a State Public Service Commission conducts selection processes for multiple State services and government posts. The article supports this broad understanding by referring to the Kerala PSC as a constitutional body, without limiting its work to a particular department.

Its State-wide role explains why the dispute has significance beyond one appointment. The controversy concerns the chairperson of an institution connected with public recruitment and selection. The article does not give figures for the number of employees, examinations, departments, or posts affected. It also does not describe any specific recruitment currently being conducted.

The immediate issue is institutional and constitutional. Former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended action involving chairperson M.R. Baiju to the President. The CPI(M) called that move unconstitutional, while the Assembly Speaker said rules prevented discussion for now. The Business Advisory Committee may decide whether the matter can be taken up.

The Governor’s role was to recommend action against PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju to the President. The President is the authority who would decide whether to accept that recommendation. The article reports the recommendation but does not say that the President has accepted it or specify a timetable for a decision.

The State government is politically involved, but its formal role is unclear from the article. The Chief Minister has not stated his stand, while ministers have taken differing positions. Under the constitutional framework referenced in the dispute, Article 163 concerns the Governor acting with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Assembly does not itself remove the chairperson. Its immediate procedural role is considering whether the issue may be debated.

Speaker Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan rejected the submission under Assembly rules. He referred the question to the Business Advisory Committee for possible future consideration. Thus, the reported process has a recommendation, not a completed removal, and the constitutional roles remain politically contested.

The immediate possible consequence would be action against PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju, because former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended his removal to the President. The article also describes the CPI(M) as demanding clarity over a recommendation to dissolve the PSC, although its main opening account concerns removing the chairperson. These are politically linked but not explained as identical outcomes.

The article gives no confirmed details about what would happen to recruitment, examinations, appointments, staff, or pending cases if the President accepted the recommendation. It therefore cannot establish that the PSC would stop functioning. Nor does it identify an interim chairperson or replacement process. The only reported mechanism is the Governor’s recommendation followed by a possible presidential decision.

The political consequences are clearer. The move has triggered accusations of unconstitutionality, disagreement among ministers, and claims that the government has a deal with the BJP. The Speaker may allow Assembly discussion after the Business Advisory Committee considers the matter, while the President’s position remains unreported.

The 2020 episode became relevant because Vijayan argued that the Assembly had previously handled a similar constitutional and political issue differently. He said then Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan allowed an Opposition resolution urging the President of India to recall Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. That example challenged the current Speaker’s reliance on rules restricting discussion of matters involving the President or Governor.

Vijayan did not claim the earlier resolution automatically settled the present issue. He used it to question why his current submission about the Governor’s recommendation could not be heard. He also argued that the present matter involved Article 163, court decisions, and the constitutional status of the PSC, making it important for Kerala and the wider democratic system.

The current Speaker maintained that the rules prevented permission at this stage. The disagreement therefore centered on precedent and procedure, not only on the recommendation itself. The Speaker referred the matter to the Business Advisory Committee, which will discuss whether the Assembly can take it up later.

Article 163 sets the constitutional principle that the Governor generally acts with the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers. In everyday terms, the Governor is not ordinarily expected to make executive decisions independently when the Constitution assigns the matter to ministerial advice. Vijayan said the provision applied directly to the controversy.

His argument was that former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar could act only in accordance with the Council of Ministers’ advice. Vijayan also referred to Supreme Court and High Court decisions that, he said, had made this position clear. The dispute therefore concerns whether the recommendation to the President was constitutionally proper, especially because the article says the recommendation was made without the government’s knowledge while an investigation was underway.

The government has not presented one unified public position in the article. The Chief Minister has not stated his stand, most speaking UDF ministers supported the move, and some ministers called it improper. The Assembly may revisit the issue after the Business Advisory Committee’s discussion.