Constitution of India
Article 317: Removal and suspension of a member of a Public Service Commission
Part XIV — Services Under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Clause (1) — Removal on ground of misbehaviour via Supreme Court inquiry
WHAT IT SAYS: The Chairman or any member of a PSC can only be removed by Presidential order on ground of misbehaviour, after the Supreme Court — on a Presidential reference — conducts an inquiry under Article 145 procedure and reports that removal is warranted. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The President CANNOT remove on his own — he must first refer the matter to the SC. 2. The SC conducts a full fact-finding inquiry (not just a limited review). 3. Only AFTER the SC recommends removal can the President pass a removal order. 4. This applies to UPSC, State PSC, and Joint PSC members alike. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Judicial Superintendence over removal — analogous to removal of SC/HC Judges (Art. 124(4)), CAG (Art. 148), and CEC (Art. 324(5)).
Clause (2) — Power of suspension during inquiry
WHAT IT SAYS: The President (for Union/Joint PSC) or the Governor (for State PSC) may suspend the Chairman or member against whom a reference under Clause (1) has been made, pending the Supreme Court's report. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Suspension is INTERIM — it lasts only until the President passes final orders on the SC report. 2. Suspension can occur ONLY after a reference is actually made to the SC — not before. 3. Governor acts on ministerial advice, NOT at personal discretion (per Samsher Singh, 1974). KEY DOCTRINE: Suspension-only-after-reference principle — prevents pre-emptive executive action.
Clause (3) — Removal on other grounds without SC inquiry
WHAT IT SAYS: Notwithstanding Clause (1), the President may directly remove a PSC Chairman or member if: (a) adjudged insolvent, (b) engages in paid employment outside official duties during tenure, or (c) in the President's opinion, unfit due to infirmity of mind or body. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. These are AUTOMATIC disqualifications — no SC inquiry needed. 2. This is an exception to the protective mechanism of Clause (1). 3. The President alone decides under sub-clause (c) — subjective satisfaction. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of manifest disqualification — certain conditions self-evidently compromise the office, making judicial inquiry unnecessary.
Clause (4) — Deemed misbehaviour for conflict of interest
WHAT IT SAYS: If a PSC Chairman or member is or becomes concerned/interested in any government contract, or participates in profits or benefits thereof (other than as an ordinary shareholder of an incorporated company), he shall be DEEMED guilty of misbehaviour for purposes of Clause (1). WHAT IT MEANS: 1. This is a DEEMING provision — no further proof of misbehaviour is needed once conflict of interest is shown. 2. It defines the ONLY statutorily enumerated form of misbehaviour; all other misbehaviour is left to SC interpretation. 3. Exception: Being a common shareholder in an incorporated company is allowed. KEY DOCTRINE: Anti-conflict-of-interest principle — ensures PSC members act free from financial bias in recruitment.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 261–264 (Public Service Commissions) Original provision: The 1935 Act established Federal and Provincial Public Service Commissions with provisions for their appointment, tenure, and removal by the Crown/Governor-General. What India kept: The basic framework of constitutionally protected PSCs with removal safeguards, but replaced Crown authority with the President and Supreme Court. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Supreme Court inquiry made mandatory — Under the 1935 Act, the Crown/Governor-General had broader discretion; India introduced judicial superintendence to prevent political interference. 2. Removal power vested solely in the President (even for State PSC members) — This ensures uniformity and prevents State-level political pressures; Governors cannot remove State PSC members. 3. Deemed misbehaviour clause (Cl. 4) added — An original Indian contribution addressing conflict of interest; not present in the 1935 Act in this specific form. 4. Suspension-only-after-SC-reference — A unique Indian safeguard ensuring no punitive suspension without judicial process being initiated. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: The framers felt that PSC independence was critical to building a merit-based civil service free from political patronage, hence the rigorous SC-supervised removal procedure — stronger than anything under colonial law.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 22 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Drafting Committee Chairman) — Introduced Draft Article 285A as a new provision not in the 1948 Draft Constitution, providing a structured mechanism for removal and suspension of PSC members. 2. One Member (name not recorded in available CAD summaries) — Proposed replacing 'shall only be removed' with 'may be removed', arguing for flexibility; the Assembly did not discuss this. 3. Another Member — Proposed substituting 'misbehaviour or of infirmity of mind or body' with 'misdemeanour or incapacity', arguing the original phrasing was colloquial. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. 'Shall only' vs 'May' — One member wanted discretionary language ('may be removed') instead of mandatory protection ('shall only be removed'). Assembly ignored the proposal. 2. Terminology — 'Misbehaviour' vs 'Misdemeanour' — A member argued the original wording was colloquial. Assembly rejected this amendment without debate. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 285A was adopted as moved by Dr. Ambedkar on the same day, with both proposed amendments rejected — the Assembly favoured the stronger protective language. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (paraphrase): The PSC is one of the three instruments — alongside the Supreme Court and the CAG — to ensure proper checks and balances in governance.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. In re Reference under Article 317(1) — Special Reference No. 1 of 1983, (1983) 4 SCC 258 — The first-ever Presidential Reference under Art. 317(1); CJ Chandrachud held that the SC must conduct a full fact-finding inquiry itself and no prior independent fact-finding body is needed before a Presidential reference. 2. In re Reference under Article 317(1) — Report, (1990) 4 SCC 262 — Held that physical violence by a PSC member (against the Chairman) amounted to misbehaviour warranting removal, establishing high standards of conduct expected. 3. In re Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman HPSC (2010) 13 SCC 586 — Held that 'misbehaviour' must be given wide import; standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities; even without direct evidence, glaring inaction reeking of favouritism can constitute misbehaviour. 4. In re Mepung Tadar Bage, APPSC (2025 INSC 1047) — Held that misbehaviour under Art. 317 is 'in personam' — requires specific individual acts; collective/institutional responsibility cannot be imposed on individual members; exonerated the member on all six charges. 5. State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) — Emphasised ethical and moral integrity required of PSC members; commissions must remain beyond reproach to preserve public confidence. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. No major recorded dissents in Art. 317 references — the SC typically sits as a fact-finding body and delivers unanimous advisory reports. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Justice Swatanter Kumar (In re Mehar Singh Saini, 2010) — Observed that the Constituent Assembly debates reflect the framers' desire to ensure complete independence, integrity and fairness via PSCs as one of three constitutional instruments of governance. 2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission — Recommended measures to enhance the transparency and accountability of Public Service Commissions, including stricter selection criteria for PSC membership.