In Kerala, ex-Governor Rajendra Arlekar’s move to oust public service commission chief, members sparks row

The former Governor’s recommendation could reshape Kerala’s constitutional recruitment body. Rajendra Arlekar asked President Droupadi Murmu to remove PSC chairperson M R Baiju and other members. Lok Bhavan sources also said he recommended dissolving the entire commission. The move came amid a police investigation into alleged recruitment irregularities.

Arlekar left Keralam on October 22, one day before Om Prakash Mathur became Governor. The allegations involve possible malpractice in recruitment and examination evaluation. An internal PSC inquiry in June 2026 found serious lapses in evaluating candidates for a key State Planning Board post. The lapses allegedly benefited a CPI(M)-affiliated candidate.

The recommendation is now politically disputed. Pinarayi Vijayan and Revenue Minister A P Anil Kumar called it improper or illegal, saying the constitutional procedure had not been followed. BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar supported the move and accused the Congress government of shielding alleged PSC malpractice. The President’s next constitutional steps are central to the dispute.

A Public Service Commission, or PSC, is a constitutional recruitment body for government employment. It helps organise examinations, evaluate candidates and recommend people for public posts. Its role matters because government hiring affects who fills important administrative and technical positions.

In this case, the Keralam PSC conducted recruitment examinations, including the process for a key post at the State Planning Board. An internal inquiry later found serious evaluation lapses. The allegations raised questions about whether the selection process was fair and whether political connections benefited a candidate affiliated with the CPI(M).

The commission’s constitutional status gives it institutional protection. Its chairperson and members are appointed under Article 316, and removal follows Article 317. That means a state government or Governor cannot simply dismiss them. The controversy therefore involves both alleged recruitment failures and the legal safeguards governing the body responsible for public hiring.

A state PSC chairperson or member has a constitutional term of six years. This fixed period is designed to give the commission continuity while it handles examinations, evaluations and recommendations for government jobs. The six-year term was central to the political criticism of Arlekar’s recommendation.

Pinarayi Vijayan said PSC members are appointed under Article 316 for six years. He argued that they cannot be removed through an informal or hurried decision. Instead, removal must follow the separate procedure laid down in Article 317. The article links that procedure to a Supreme Court inquiry into the allegations.

The current dispute turns on whether that process has begun correctly. Opponents say the police investigation into recruitment allegations is still continuing and that no Supreme Court inquiry has taken place. Supporters of the recommendation point to the seriousness of the alleged PSC lapses. The President must now consider the constitutional route before any removal order.

The police inquiry concerns alleged irregularities in recruitment conducted by the Keralam PSC. The allegations include malpractice in the selection process, political interference and favouritism. They matter because a PSC is expected to conduct fair examinations and recommend candidates for public employment.

The clearest example involves recruitment for a key post at the State Planning Board. In June 2026, an internal PSC inquiry found serious lapses in the evaluation process. The lapses allegedly benefited a candidate affiliated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The State Crime Branch is investigating the matter.

Other recruitments by the current PSC have also faced allegations of political interference and favouritism. Organisations including ABVP and the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha petitioned the Governor for action. Arlekar had earlier summoned the PSC secretary and sought a report. The police investigation and the constitutional removal process now proceed amid competing political claims.

Article 317 sets a specific constitutional safeguard for removing a state PSC chairperson or member. The President has the authority to issue the removal order, but cannot do so immediately merely because allegations have been made. The allegations must first undergo the prescribed judicial process.

The President must refer the allegations to the Supreme Court for an inquiry. The Court examines the matter and submits a report. If that report supports removal, the President may then issue an order removing the chairperson or members. This separates investigation from the final executive decision.

That procedure is at the heart of the Kerala controversy. Pinarayi Vijayan said no such Supreme Court process had taken place and therefore called the Governor’s recommendation illegal. Revenue Minister A P Anil Kumar also criticised the timing while saying the allegations should not be justified. The recommendation does not itself complete the removal process; the constitutional inquiry remains crucial.

After receiving a recommendation, the President must follow Article 317 rather than immediately dismissing the PSC chairperson or members. The recommendation raises the issue, but it is not itself a final removal order. This distinction matters because PSC members hold constitutional offices with a protected removal process.

The key mechanism is a Supreme Court inquiry. The President refers the allegations to the Court, which investigates and reports whether the grounds support removal. If the report favours removal, the President can issue the formal order. The article does not describe any alternative route for completing the process.

In this case, critics say the required Supreme Court inquiry has not happened. They argue that the police investigation is still underway and that Arlekar’s recommendation was premature. Supporters say the allegations reveal serious failures and justify action. The next constitutional stage, if the President proceeds, is therefore referral to the Supreme Court and consideration of its report.

The article does not explicitly explain why the Constitution created this protection. In constitutional practice, a fixed appointment and removal process helps a PSC operate independently from the government whose jobs it helps fill. That matters when recruitment decisions are politically sensitive.

The article’s dispute shows the practical reason for the safeguard. Allegations involve political interference, favouritism and evaluation lapses. A state government or Governor could otherwise be accused of using dismissal to punish a commission or protect it from scrutiny. Article 317 instead requires the President to refer allegations to the Supreme Court before removal.

This process creates an independent judicial check before a constitutional officer loses office. It also separates allegations from proof and proof from the final order. In the present case, critics say the Supreme Court inquiry has not occurred, while supporters stress the seriousness of the alleged irregularities. The constitutional procedure is intended to protect both accountability and institutional independence.