Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan challenged Vijayan’s attempt to pursue the matter after the ruling, saying the government was bound by the Speaker’s decision. Satheesan said his administration had a considered position on the controversy and was prepared to explain it if the Chair permitted a discussion.
Radhakrishnan maintained that Assembly procedure restricted criticism of constitutional authorities, including the President and Governors, through a submission of the kind proposed by Vijayan. He nevertheless offered to discuss alternative parliamentary procedures with the Opposition Leader and consider taking up the issue another day.
Vijayan disputed the interpretation, arguing that the Assembly could not be prevented from examining serious constitutional questions affecting state administration and the autonomy of the PSC. He said the former Governor’s intervention required scrutiny because it concerned the functioning of a constitutional recruitment body.
The Opposition Leader invoked a precedent from 2020, when the Assembly had considered a notice seeking a resolution urging the President to recall then Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. Vijayan said then Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan had found the notice admissible under Rule 130, although the decision on holding a discussion rested with the government.
Radhakrishnan responded that the proposed submission was not a substantive motion and therefore could not be admitted in its existing form. He asked Vijayan to accept the ruling rather than continue the exchange, while leaving open the possibility of another procedural route.
The confrontation followed confirmation that Arlekar had written to President Droupadi Murmu before leaving the Governor’s office, recommending action against Baiju and other commission members over allegations of recruitment irregularities. Arlekar was succeeded by Om Prakash Mathur after his transfer to Tamil Nadu.
Vijayan has described the recommendation as unconstitutional and maintained that the Governor could not act independently of the elected government in such matters. He has also argued that allegations against PSC officeholders must be assessed through the procedure specified by the Constitution, rather than treated as grounds for immediate dismissal.
Article 317 provides that the President may remove a Public Service Commission chairperson or member for misbehaviour following an inquiry by the Supreme Court and its recommendation for removal. The provision separately permits removal on specified grounds, including insolvency, outside paid employment and incapacity. A Governor may suspend a state commission member once the requisite Supreme Court reference has been made.
The recommendation itself does not constitute an order removing Baiju or the commission members. No presidential removal order has been announced. The constitutional process and any decision on referring allegations to the Supreme Court remain distinct from the police investigation into the commission’s recruitment practices.
The controversy has also exposed differences among government figures. Revenue Minister A. P. Anil Kumar objected to the recommendation being made without consulting the state government, while Health Minister K. Muraleedharan supported action against the commission in view of allegations uncovered during the investigation.
The State Crime Branch is investigating alleged irregularities in recruitment for posts connected with the State Planning Board. Its inquiry has included the evaluation of examination papers and decisions taken during recruitment, with allegations of favouritism yet to be conclusively established in court.
Police issued a notice on Monday asking Baiju to appear for questioning on Wednesday.
(The article ‘Vijayan bid to raise Governor move fails’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
