Summary
Shortly before leaving Kerala for Tamil Nadu, Governor Rajendra Arlekar recommended to President Droupadi Murmu the removal of Kerala PSC Chairperson M.R. Baiju. Lok Bhavan sources said the recommendation also covered the other members and the dissolution of the whole commission.
It followed a Crime Branch probe into alleged malpractice in a PSC recruitment for the State Planning Board. The CPI(M) and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan called it unconstitutional, arguing that Article 317 allows removal only by the President after a Supreme Court inquiry.
Most UDF Ministers backed the Governor, although the Revenue Minister reportedly called the step a constitutional impropriety. The episode tests the deliberately asymmetric design that protects PSCs from the executive.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
Former Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended to the President the removal of the Kerala Public Service Commission's chairperson and, per Lok Bhavan sources, its members and the dissolution of the commission. The recommendation was made about a week before he left Kerala on 22 October 2026 and it drew a sharp political and constitutional row over Articles 316 and 317.
Standard News
A Word the Constitution Does Not Know: "Dissolving" a Public Service Commission The
Constitution gives the Governor the pen to appoint a State Public Service Commission and deliberately takes it away when the question is removal. Under Article 316, the Governor appoints the chairperson and members. Under Article 317, only the President can remove them for misbehaviour and only after the Supreme Court has inquired and reported that removal is warranted.
That asymmetry is not an oversight. It is the entire security system of the commission.
The rule as written Article 317 builds three locks, one behind the other:
- The President decides. Removal for misbehaviour is by presidential order alone and the President acts on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
- The Supreme Court must inquire first. The order can follow only if the Court, on a presidential reference, reports that the member ought to be removed.
- The Governor's role begins after the reference. Article 317(2) lets the Governor suspend a member only once a reference has gone to the Court. The text gives the Governor no step before that point. The design ensures that a State government unhappy with recruitment outcomes cannot purge the commission and neither can any single constitutional functionary.
The rule as practiced in Kerala Outgoing Governor Rajendra Arlekar wrote to the President seeking the removal of Chairperson M.R.
Baiju. Lok Bhavan sources added that the request extended to the members and to dissolving the commission altogether. He did so about a week before leaving Kerala, while the Crime Branch was still probing alleged malpractice in a recruitment for the State Planning Board.
Two problems follow from the text itself. First, "dissolution" has no Article behind it. Article 315 requires every State to have a PSC and Article 317 speaks of removing an individual member for that member's misbehaviour.
The Supreme Court underlined this in the 2025 Mepung Tadar Bage reference, holding that misbehaviour needs specific individual acts. A blanket request to wipe out a whole commission asks for something the Constitution simply does not provide. Second, the Governor acted outside the elected government. Ordinarily, a Governor acts on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers.
Here, Revenue Minister A.P. Anil Kumar reportedly objected that the State government was neither informed nor consulted, even though he did not defend the members facing allegations. Most UDF Ministers, however, supported the move.
Where the
genuine silence lies The text does not say how allegations against a State PSC member should reach the President. In practice, a Governor's letter is one route, but it remains only a letter. It cannot substitute for the Union government's decision to make a reference or for the Court's finding.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Article 315 provides for a Public Service Commission for the Union and for each State.
-
Under Article 316, members of a State PSC are appointed by the Governor.
-
A State PSC member holds office for six years or until the age of 62, whichever is earlier.
-
Under Article 317(1), a PSC member can be removed for misbehaviour only by order of the President, after the Supreme Court, on a reference by the President, reports that the member ought to be removed.
-
Under Article 317(2), the Governor may suspend a State PSC member only after such a reference has been made to the Supreme Court.
-
Under Article 317(3), the President may remove a member without a Supreme Court inquiry only for insolvency, paid employment outside official duties or infirmity of mind or body.
-
Dr. M.R. Baiju was sworn in as Kerala PSC Chairman on 30 October 2022.
-
Om Prakash Mathur was sworn in as Governor of Kerala on 23 October 2026.
-
In 2025, the Supreme Court held in the Mepung Tadar Bage reference that misbehaviour under Article 317 requires specific individual acts.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
Why the framers made appointment easy and removal hard and how Articles 315, 316 and 317 work together as one insulation system.
The exact sequence Arunachal Pradesh followed in the Mepung Tadar Bage case, from reference to suspension to the Supreme Court's 2025 test of specific individual acts.
The genuine constitutional silence on who may trigger an Article 317 reference and the gap between a Governor's letter and a presidential reference.
A way forward that lets Kerala punish real recruitment fraud without handing any executive a template to purge an inconvenient commission.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free