The Kerala Public Service Commission’s noncooperation with the police investigation into malpractices in the conduct of examinations could amount to a violation of principles laid down by the Supreme Court, according to legal experts. They said such conduct could potentially lead to the initiation of procedures for the removal of the PSC Chairman.

In the Ram Ashray Yadav case of 2000, the Supreme Court had ruled that the functioning of PSCs should be impartial and transparent. It should not be influenced by political or other factors. Terming the PSC Chairperson a ‘Constitutional trustee’, the Supreme Court said the person occupying the post should act in a totally blemishless and exemplary manner.

The Supreme Court also said in the case of 2010 against Mehar Singh Saini, who was the Chairman of the Haryana PSC, that the responsibilities of a person occupying a position would be proportional to seniority. Mehar Singh was accused of similar charges currently raised against the Kerala PSC.

As per Article 317 of the Constitution, in order to oust a PSC Chairman or member, the Governor has to give a reference to the President on their alleged ‘misbehaviour’. Following this, the President will refer the matter to the Supreme Court for an inquiry. A decision will later be taken by the President based on the report submitted by the court. Meanwhile, the Governor will have powers to suspend the PSC Chairman or members after the President gives a reference to the apex court. However, the Governor can utilise this power only on the recommendation of the state government, the Karnataka High Court said in 2017, based on a Supreme Court judgment of 1993.

In the Mehar Singh case, the President’s reference had mentioned that noncooperation with the investigation of the state Vigilance Bureau into exam malpractices was a crime. The Court observed that noncooperation of the PSC Chairman or member with the inquiry was not aimed at protecting their Constitutional positions, but was an attempt to cover up their lapses. Such efforts caused damage to the reputation of the PSC, the court added.

The Supreme Court said the charge of ‘misbehaviour’ raised against a PSC Chairman or member need not be proven without doubt, as in criminal cases. An allegation could be considered a ‘misbehaviour’ if it is supported by documents, the court explained.

In yet another case involving a PSC member from Arunachal Pradesh last year, the Court made it clear that bringing disrepute to the Commission could also be considered ‘misbehaviour’.