Karnataka High Court to examine Governor's power to suspend KPSC chief without Cabinet nod

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday issued notice to suspended Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) chairperson Shivashankarappa S. Sahukar on an appeal filed by the Special Secretary to the Governor. The appeal challenges a single judge's recent ruling that the Governor cannot suspend the chairperson without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, even in urgent circumstances. The single judge had also declared that post facto approval by the Council was invalid.

A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha adjourned the further hearing of the matter till December 2.

In the appeal, the Governor's office argued that the single judge had erred by setting aside the July 10 suspension for lack of prior 'aid and advice' from the Council of Ministers. It was contended that the urgent action was justified because the chairperson's alleged failure to disclose his daughters' participation in KPSC recruitment had triggered public outrage, threatening the commission's credibility.

The appellant relied on the doctrine of ratification, noting that the Council of Ministers formally approved the Governor's suspension action on July 19. Citing the Supreme Court's three-judge bench ruling in P.P. Singh, the appeal maintained that subsequent ratification validates the original action and dates back to its issuance. This, it was argued, effectively cures any procedural infirmity, especially since there was no conflict between the decision of the Governor and the Council of Ministers.

The appeal further warned that allowing the single judge's interpretation to stand would have serious consequences. It would 'seriously impair the functioning' of constitutional bodies and 'substantially dilute' the Governor's power under Article 317(2) of the Constitution, which allows the Governor to act decisively against the chairperson or members of State Public Service Commissions when an institution's integrity is at stake.

The background to this case is that a single judge on August 18 set aside the Governor's July 10 order suspending Mr. Sahukar. The court, however, gave liberty to the Governor to take a fresh decision with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

Although the Governor passed a fresh order suspending Mr. Sahukar after the single judge's judgment, the present appeal has been filed specifically to challenge the interpretation of law. The Governor's office argues that a Governor can act independently under Article 317(2) of the Constitution, and that the requirement of prior Cabinet advice should not apply in urgent situations involving the credibility of constitutional bodies.

The case raises important questions about the scope of the Governor's discretionary powers under the Constitution, particularly in relation to the functioning of public service commissions. The Division Bench's final decision will have implications for similar institutions across states, as it will clarify whether the Governor must always seek prior Cabinet approval before suspending a chairperson or member of a State Public Service Commission.

Until the next hearing on December 2, readers with an interest in constitutional law and governance will be watching closely. The court's ruling will determine the balance between the Governor's independent oversight role and the constitutional principle that the Governor, as the head of the state, generally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.