Ebenezer News Explainer DeskExplainers are written from our published summary and its cited sources, then checked against them.26 Oct 2026, 08:05 amUpdated 1h ago5 min readIndiaIndia
Kerala Assembly dispute over former Governor's PSC recommendation explained
The Kerala Assembly experienced a heated exchange on Monday after Speaker Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan disallowed a submission by Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan. The dispute centers on whether the House can discuss a former Governor's recommendation to remove the Kerala Public Service Commission chairperson, raising questions about constitutional procedures and legislative rules.
Simple details
The Speaker cited the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly.
Former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended the removal of PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju.
Pinarayi Vijayan cited a 2020 precedent involving former Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan.
The CPI(M) State secretariat demanded the Chief Minister clarify his position.
Some Ministers have described the former Governor's recommendation as a constitutional impropriety.
What happened in the House
The conflict erupted on Monday when the Speaker denied permission for a submission regarding former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar’s recommendation to the President. This recommendation concerned the removal of Kerala Public Service Commission chairperson M.R. Baiju.
Speaker Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan cited the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly. He stated that the House must avoid discussing issues involving the President or the Governor.
Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan challenged this ruling. He argued that the matter is significant for the entire country and that constitutional values are at stake.
Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan interjected during the session. He noted that the government would have to answer if the Opposition continued to raise the issue after the Speaker’s ruling.
Electricity Minister Sunny Joseph stated that once a Speaker issues a ruling, everyone has to follow it. This highlighted the tension within the Assembly regarding procedural compliance.
Why this matters
The issue has sparked debate over constitutional values and the relationship between the Governor and the state government. It highlights how legislative bodies navigate rules when constitutional offices are involved.
The Leader of the Opposition who sought to raise the matter.
The Chief Minister who faced interjections regarding the government's stance.
The State government which must consider its position on the recommendation.
The Kerala Public Service Commission as a constitutional body.
The democratic system which is impacted by these constitutional discussions.
Background of the dispute
Pinarayi Vijayan referenced Article 163 of the Constitution. He stated that the Governor can only act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
He also noted that in 2020, then Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan allowed the Opposition’s resolution urging the President to recall Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. He argued this established a precedent.
The CPI(M) has been accusing the Chief Minister of sharing a cordial relationship with the former Governor. They allege the former Governor implemented the policies of the Sangh Parivar in Kerala.
The send-off programme for the former Governor also led to allegations by the Opposition. They claimed the government had a deal with the BJP.
Reality check
There are significant limits to what the Assembly can discuss regarding the Governor. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business place strict boundaries on the House.
While the Opposition seeks to debate constitutional impropriety, the Speaker maintains that the House must avoid discussing the President or the Governor. This creates a procedural deadlock.
Who should buy and who should skip
Those interested in the constitutional relationship between the Governor and the state government.
Students of legislative procedure and the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business.
Observers tracking the political dynamics between the CPI(M) and the current government.
Those expecting an immediate resolution to the PSC chairperson removal controversy.
Readers looking for a definitive ruling on the constitutional validity of the Governor's recommendation.
Verdict
The situation remains a complex standoff between legislative rules and political accountability. Until the Business Advisory Committee meets, the Assembly will likely remain divided on the scope of its own authority.
What happens next
The legislative process will determine if the matter is revisited. The following steps may occur as the Assembly manages this controversy:
The Business Advisory Committee will meet to discuss if the issue can be taken up.
The government may provide further clarification on its stand regarding the recommendation.
Legislative procedures will continue to be applied to determine the scope of permissible debate.
Key facts at a glance
The Speaker cited the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Assembly.
Former Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar recommended the removal of PSC chairperson M.R. Baiju.
Pinarayi Vijayan cited a 2020 precedent involving Speaker P. Sreeramakrishnan.
The CPI(M) State secretariat demanded the Chief Minister clarify his position.
Some Ministers have described the former Governor's recommendation as a constitutional impropriety.
