Polity · GS2.1, GS2.3 · 2026-10-26 · 3 min read · 2026-10-26-pm
Former Kerala Governor's Move to Remove PSC Chairperson Sparks Constitutional Debate
Former Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended the President remove the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) chairperson over alleged irregularities, prompting opposition claims of unconstitutionality. This incident highlights constitutional provisions on PSC removal and political interference in statutory bodies, relevant for UPSC exams.
The removal of a PSC chairperson requires a Supreme Court inquiry before the President can act, making the former Governor's recommendation constitutionally questionable.
Why is this in the news?
On October 25, 2026, former Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended the President remove the Kerala PSC chairperson, sparking political controversy over constitutional authority.
What did the former Governor recommend and why?
- Recommendation to President. Former Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended the President remove the Kerala PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju due to alleged irregularities in recruitment processes.
- Timing and context. The recommendation was sent a week before the Governor left office and amid a Crime Branch investigation into PSC examination irregularities.
Why is the recommendation considered unconstitutional by the opposition?
- Constitutional procedure under Article 317. Article 317 allows the President to remove a PSC chairperson only after a Supreme Court inquiry reports misbehaviour, which has not occurred in this case.
- Governor's authority limited. Article 163 mandates the Governor act only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, so the Governor has no independent authority to recommend removal.
- Political concerns. Opposition parties argue the move is a political vendetta targeting the PSC and undermines institutional autonomy.
What are the political reactions to the Governor's move?
- Opposition's stance. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan called the recommendation unlawful and a gross abuse of power.
- Support within UDF. Some UDF Ministers supported the move, while others, like Revenue Minister A.P. Anil Kumar, called it a constitutional impropriety.
- BJP's position. The BJP State president welcomed the move, accusing the UDF government of shielding irregularities in the PSC.
Key numbers
| Figure | What it measures | Source |
|---|---|---|
| a week before he was relieved of his duties | Timing of the Governor's recommendation to the President |
Back to basics: Removal process of Public Service Commission chairpersons
The Constitution provides that the President can remove a PSC chairperson or member only on grounds of misbehaviour after a Supreme Court inquiry reports such removal is justified. The Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot independently recommend removal. This ensures institutional autonomy and prevents arbitrary dismissals.
Practice: MCQ, Mains and revision
Prelims MCQ
Consider the following statements about the removal of a Public Service Commission (PSC) chairperson: 1. The Governor can recommend the removal of a PSC chairperson independently. 2. The President can remove a PSC chairperson only after a Supreme Court inquiry reports misbehaviour. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer and trap
Answer: (b). Statement 1 is incorrect because the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot independently recommend removal.
Mains question (15 marks)
Examine the constitutional safeguards for the removal of statutory body heads and discuss the implications of political interference in such bodies.
Examine: Explain the constitutional provisions protecting statutory body heads from arbitrary removal and analyse the consequences of political interference.
Intro: The Constitution provides specific safeguards for the removal of statutory body heads to ensure their independence.
- Describe Article 317 and the role of the Supreme Court in removal of PSC chairpersons.
- Explain the Governor's role under Article 163 and the necessity of acting on the Council of Ministers' advice.
- Discuss the political controversy arising from the Kerala Governor's recommendation and its implications for institutional autonomy.
- Analyse how such interference can affect governance and public trust in statutory bodies.
Conclusion: Constitutional safeguards are essential to maintain the independence of statutory bodies and prevent misuse of power.
Quick revision
- Who can remove a Public Service Commission chairperson according to the Constitution?
- The President can remove a PSC chairperson only after a Supreme Court inquiry reports misbehaviour.
- Can a Governor independently recommend the removal of a PSC chairperson?
- No, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and has no independent authority to recommend removal.
- What triggered the former Kerala Governor's recommendation to remove the PSC chairperson?
- Alleged irregularities in the PSC recruitment process and an ongoing Crime Branch investigation.