A constitutional alarm has been sounded in Kerala. Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Sunday, October 25, 2026, accused the outgoing Governor of recommending the removal of the state's Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman and the dissolution of the body — moves he called a grave violation of constitutional procedure and a suspected instrument of BJP's political agenda. The Chief Minister's post stated: 'Media reports about the outgoing Governor's alleged recommendation to remove Kerala's PSC Chairman and dissolve the Commission raise grave constitutional concerns.' The charge is specific and pointed — and it goes straight to the text of the Constitution.

What Article 317 actually says — and why it matters here

Article 317 of the Constitution of India, in place since 1950, lays down the only lawful route to remove a PSC Chairman or member: the matter must go to the Supreme Court of India, which conducts an independent inquiry, and only if the apex court reports that removal is warranted can the President of India act. There is no shortcut — no gubernatorial recommendation can substitute for this process. Vijayan's post makes this procedural wall explicit, warning that any attempt to bypass it would undermine institutional autonomy built into the constitutional framework itself. The Kerala Public Service Commission is a constitutional body under Articles 315–323, entrusted with recruiting state civil servants through competitive examinations. Its independence is not incidental — it is the structural guarantee that appointments to the state bureaucracy remain insulated from political interference. An attempt to dissolve or decapitate it through executive fiat, if the media reports are accurate, would strike at that guarantee directly.

The Raj Bhavan-state government fault line

Vijayan's post also takes aim at the use of Lok Bhavan — the official gubernatorial residence — for what he describes as the BJP's political agenda. The accusation slots into a well-documented pattern of federal friction: in Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala itself, governors appointed by the Centre have repeatedly clashed with opposition-ruled state governments over institutional appointments, university chancellorships, and commission memberships. Critics in these states have long argued that governors are acting as political proxies rather than neutral constitutional functionaries. For the Left Democratic Front government in Thiruvananthapuram, this episode is the latest front in that larger battle over the boundaries of gubernatorial power.

Vijayan's demand to the UDF opposition

The Chief Minister's post carries an explicit political challenge beyond the constitutional argument. Vijayan called on the United Democratic Front (UDF) — the Congress-led opposition alliance in Kerala — to 'clarify its stand and unequivocally oppose any attempt to bypass constitutional procedures or undermine institutional autonomy.' The framing is deliberate: it puts the UDF on notice that silence or ambiguity will be read as complicity with the Centre's alleged manoeuvre. It is a pressure play, aimed at forcing the opposition into a public constitutional commitment. The key question now is whether the matter is formally referred to the Supreme Court for inquiry under Article 317 — and how loudly the UDF chooses to answer the CM's challenge.