Constitution of India
Article 321: Power to extend functions of Public Service Commissions
Part XIV — Services under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Article 321 (no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: Parliament or a State Legislature may, by law, confer additional functions on the UPSC or a State PSC regarding services of the Union, State, local authorities, body corporates constituted by law, or public institutions. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. PSC functions under Art. 320 are not exhaustive — legislatures can expand them. 2. Extension can cover recruitment, advisory, or consultative roles for local bodies, statutory corporations, and public institutions. 3. Only a legislative Act (not executive order) can extend PSC functions. 4. Parliament extends UPSC functions; State Legislature extends SPSC functions. 5. Ensures PSC expertise is available beyond regular civil services. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Legislative Flexibility — the Constitution itself enables future-proofing of PSC roles through ordinary legislation, without requiring constitutional amendment.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 264–266 (Public Service Commissions) Original provision: The 1935 Act established a Federal PSC and Provincial PSCs with defined advisory and recruitment functions. What India kept: The basic architecture of UPSC/SPSC, their advisory role, and the concept of legislative extension of PSC functions. 2. British Civil Service Commission (UK Model) Original provision: The UK Civil Service Commission oversaw merit-based recruitment and could be assigned additional tasks by statute. What India kept: The principle of an independent merit-based recruitment body with legislatively expandable jurisdiction. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Broader scope to include local authorities and body corporates — Indian framers anticipated a vast expansion of public sector institutions post-independence. 2. Dual-level extension (Parliament for UPSC, State Legislature for SPSC) — Reflects India's federal structure, absent in the unitary UK model. 3. Inclusion of 'public institutions' — Unique Indian addition to ensure PSC oversight even in non-governmental public bodies created by law.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 23 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) Draft Article Number: 287 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed amending the original Draft Article 287 to extend PSC jurisdiction to body corporates and public institutions created by law, removing the earlier restriction limiting State PSC functions only to State service members. 2. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Moved an amendment to exclude companies under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and banking companies under the Banking Companies Act, 1949 from PSC purview, fearing interference in private sector functioning. 3. Shri Brajeshwar Prasad (Bihar) — Supported the articles moved by the Drafting Committee Chairman but expressed concern that PSC powers were only advisory in character. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Private sector exclusion — Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad argued that PSC meddling in private firms would hamper their business; his amendment to exclude private companies was put to vote and negatived. 2. Scope of 'body corporate' — A member supported inclusion of local authorities (as they often hired unqualified persons based on biases) but wanted explicit exclusion of private corporations to prevent PSC overreach. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 287, as amended by Dr. Ambedkar (expanding scope to local authorities, body corporates, and public institutions), was adopted; Naziruddin Ahmad's amendment to exclude private companies was rejected. AMBEDKAR'S KEY POSITION: The amended draft requires that posts under a Corporation or Public Institution created by law should be dealt with by the PSC in the same manner as posts under the Union or a State.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (1957) — The Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) discussed the scheme of Articles 320–321–323, holding that Article 321 envisages 'additional functions' as may be provided by Parliament or State Legislature; Art. 320(3) consultation is directory, not mandatory. 2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954) — Upheld the legislative competence of Parliament to extend functions of the UPSC under Article 321, affirming that PSC expertise can be utilised across diverse administrative domains. 3. UPSC v. S.R. Tiwari (1964) — Recognised that UPSC functions under Article 321 could include special recruitment and selection responsibilities assigned by legislature, provided they are consistent with constitutional principles. 4. State of U.P. v. Rajendra Singh (2009) — Reaffirmed that Article 321 offers administrative flexibility to extend PSC jurisdiction but cautioned that the autonomy and independence of Commissions must not be compromised. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None specifically recorded in the above cases for Article 321. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain — Noted that Article 321 ensures the constitutional framework for PSCs remains adaptable to the expanding needs of Indian governance and public sector growth. 2. D.D. Basu — Observed that Article 321 is an enabling provision that permits legislatures to broaden PSC functions to local bodies and statutory corporations without amending the Constitution.