Keralam Assembly: Heated exchanges as Speaker disallows Pinarayi’s submission on ex-Governor’s move to remove PSC chairperson
Citing Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Assembly, Speaker says House has to avoid discussing issues involving President or Governor. However, Pinarayi responds saying then Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan had in 2020 allowed Opposition’s resolution urging President to recall Governor Arif Mohammed Khan
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Kerala Legislative Assembly witnessed a heated exchange between Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan and Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan regarding former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar's recommendation to the President to remove the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) chairperson M.R. Baiju. The conflict revolves around the constitutional propriety of the Governor's action and the Assembly Speaker's decision to disallow a discussion on the matter citing legislative rules.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The central issue in this controversy revolves around the constitutional role of the Governor and the limits of their discretionary power. The Opposition leader correctly cited of the Constitution, which mandates that the Governor act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, except in specific areas where discretionary powers are explicitly granted. The Governor's recommendation to remove the (SPSC) chairperson without consulting the state government is being challenged as a violation of this constitutional principle. UPSC aspirants should understand the nuances of the Governor's powers, the distinction between constitutional discretion and situational discretion, and the ongoing debate over the office of the Governor being misused for political ends. The role of the Governor as a link between the Centre and the State often leads to friction, especially when the ruling parties at the two levels are different.
Governance
This event also highlights the complex procedures regarding the removal of members of constitutional bodies like the . According to of the Constitution, a member of an SPSC can only be removed by the on the ground of misbehavior after the , on a reference made to it by the President, holds an inquiry and recommends removal. The Governor does not have the direct power to remove the SPSC chairperson. The current situation involves the Governor recommending action to the President, which has sparked a debate on the procedural correctness and political motivations behind such a move. The friction between the state government and the Governor regarding appointments and removals in state-level constitutional bodies is a recurring theme in Indian governance and a frequent topic in UPSC examinations.
Legislature
The Speaker's decision to disallow the discussion based on the Rules of Procedure brings into focus the functioning of state legislatures and the powers of the Speaker. The Speaker cited rules prohibiting discussions that involve the President or the Governor to maintain decorum and respect for higher constitutional offices. However, the Opposition countered this by referencing a past precedent where a resolution urging the recall of a Governor was allowed. This highlights the discretionary power of the in interpreting and applying legislative rules, which can often be a source of contention. The role of the (BAC) in deciding the agenda and allocating time for discussions is also crucial in managing legislative business. This incident provides a practical example of how parliamentary procedures and rules are debated and applied in real-world political scenarios.