The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) has refused to send its members to the Crime Branch headquarters for questioning in connection with the ongoing probe into alleged irregularities in appointments to the State Planning Board, setting the stage for a legal confrontation between a constitutional body and a state investigating agency. The Commission decided at its meeting on Monday, 14 September 2026, that its members would cooperate with investigators — but only at the PSC headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram.

The Stand-Off Hardens

Four PSC members have been served notices directing them to appear before the Crime Branch team from Tuesday. Three of the four were part of the interview board for the controversial Planning Board post, along with PSC Chairman M.R. Baiju, who has not been summoned so far. The Crime Branch, however, maintains that the choice of venue for questioning rests with the investigating officer and that no legal bar exists on summoning PSC members to its headquarters.

According to reports, the Crime Branch is also considering formally informing the Commission that it will not shift the questioning venue — a move that could deepen the institutional stand-off considerably.

PSC Moves Toward Judicial Challenge

The Commission is now preparing to challenge the Crime Branch notice in court. A strong internal view within the PSC, according to reports, holds that its members are being made scapegoats for lapses in the controversial appointments — a charge the investigating agency has not publicly addressed. The legal challenge, if filed, would directly test a question with broader constitutional implications: can an investigating agency insist on questioning members of a constitutional body at its own premises?

What the Investigation Has Found So Far

The Crime Branch had earlier identified lapses on the part of two PSC officials — one of whom has since retired — in the selection process for two Planning Board appointments. The current phase of the investigation seeks to determine whether the role of other officials and members went beyond the lapses already identified. Questioning the four members is considered a key step before investigators decide on further action against those already found to have erred.

This phase follows an earlier SIT probe that examined PSC lapses and recommended cancellation of the two controversial Planning Board appointments.

Constitutional Autonomy at the Centre

The dispute has brought the institutional independence of a constitutional body into sharp focus. The PSC, established under Article 315 of the Constitution, exercises quasi-judicial functions; its members argue that the manner of their questioning must reflect that status. Critics, however, point out that constitutional status does not place public officials above investigative scrutiny — only above arbitrary interference.

The outcome of any judicial intervention could set a precedent for how state investigating agencies may approach members of constitutional bodies in future probes across India.

What Happens Next

With the Crime Branch standing firm and the PSC heading to court, the next critical juncture will be whether a court grants a stay on the summons or allows the Crime Branch notices to stand. Until then, the investigation into the Planning Board appointments is effectively in a holding pattern — and the broader question of investigative authority over constitutional bodies remains unresolved.