Constitution of India
Article 322: Expenses of Public Service Commissions
Part XIV — Services Under the Union and the States (Chapter II — Public Service Commissions)
Article 322 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: All expenses of the Union or a State Public Service Commission — including salaries, allowances, and pensions of members and staff — shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State, as applicable. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. PSC expenditure is a 'charged' item — it is NOT subject to a vote in Parliament or State Legislature. 2. This ensures automatic, uninterrupted flow of funds without executive or legislative approval each year. 3. Covers UPSC expenses on the Consolidated Fund of India; SPSC expenses on the respective State's Consolidated Fund. 4. 'Charged' status places PSCs on par with other independent bodies like the CAG (Art. 148), Supreme Court judges (Art. 112), and Election Commission (Art. 324). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Financial Independence of Constitutional Bodies — insulating PSCs from executive financial control to guarantee impartial recruitment.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 266(1), Part X Original provision: Expenses of the Federal or Provincial PSC, including salaries, allowances, and pensions, shall be charged on the revenues of the Federation or Province. What India kept: Nearly identical language — replaced 'revenues of the Federation' with 'Consolidated Fund of India' and 'Province' with 'State'. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Terminology updated: 'Revenues of India/Province' → 'Consolidated Fund of India/State' — aligned with new fiscal architecture under Articles 266-267. 2. Unified PSC framework: Both UPSC and SPSCs covered under one article — the 1935 Act had separate Federal and Provincial provisions. 3. Wider coverage: Indian framers intended this to cover ALL staff expenses, not just members — ensuring comprehensive financial autonomy. NOTE: This is NOT an original Indian contribution — it was directly adopted from the Government of India Act, 1935 with minor terminological changes to suit the republican framework.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 23 August 1949 (CAD Volume IX) Draft Article Number: 288 KEY FACTS: 1. Draft Article 288 originally used the phrase 'charged on the revenues of India or the State' — later changed to 'Consolidated Fund of India or Consolidated Fund of the State' during finalisation. 2. There were NO amendments moved to Draft Article 288. 3. The President of the Assembly put it directly to vote without debate. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 288 was adopted without any amendments and without debate on 23 August 1949. CONTEXT FROM BROADER DEBATE (22–23 August 1949, CAD Volume IX): 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Presented the entire Chapter on Public Service Commissions (Arts. 281–288A) as an integrated scheme to ensure PSC independence. 2. Several members (22 Aug debates) emphasised that PSCs must be 'completely independent of the executive' to prevent 'nepotism or favouritism and the exercise of political patronage.' 3. The financial provision (Art. 288/Art. 322) was considered non-controversial because it simply replicated the existing Government of India Act, 1935 arrangement. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (from related PSC debate, 22 August 1949): Not directly on Art. 288 — Ambedkar's position was implicit: the entire PSC scheme including financial independence was designed as a package to ensure merit-based recruitment free from political interference.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) — SC held that PSC appointments must follow transparent, merit-based procedures; recognised overall constitutional scheme (Arts. 315–322) as ensuring PSC independence including financial autonomy. 2. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) — SC emphasised that PSCs occupy a 'pivotal place' in administration and their independent functioning — including financial independence — is essential to prevent nepotism. 3. Union of India v. S.K. Sharma (1990) — SC highlighted that protection under Art. 322 is an integral aspect of institutional independence, preventing executive financial control over recruitment processes. 4. State of U.P. v. Rajendra Singh (2009) — SC observed that adequate financial resources are essential for effective PSC functioning; independence cannot be maintained if financial autonomy is compromised. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None specifically recorded on Article 322 — the financial independence principle has enjoyed judicial consensus. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that 'charged expenditure' status under Art. 322 mirrors similar protections for the judiciary and CAG, forming part of the Constitution's scheme for institutional autonomy. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that Art. 322 ensures PSCs are insulated from the 'power of the purse' that legislatures might otherwise wield to influence independent bodies.