Article 317

Introduction 

Article 317 of the Indian Constitution establishes the framework for removing or suspending members of Public Service Commissions, including both Union and State commissions. This provision ensures that commission members maintain the highest standards of conduct while providing adequate protection against arbitrary removal. 

Grounds and Procedure for Removal 

Supreme Court Inquiry Process 

• The primary mechanism for removal requires a rigorous judicial process. The President can only remove a Chairman or member on grounds of misbehavior after the Supreme Court conducts a formal inquiry. This process begins when the President refers the matter to the Supreme Court, which then investigates according to procedures established under Article 145. 
• The Supreme Court's role is crucial - it acts as an independent arbiter, examining evidence and determining whether the alleged misbehavior warrants removal. Only after the Supreme Court reports that removal is justified can the President issue the removal order. This judicial oversight prevents political interference and ensures due process. 

Suspension Pending Inquiry 

• While the Supreme Court inquiry proceeds, the concerned authority can suspend the member from office. For Union or Joint Commissions, the President has this power, while for State Commissions, the Governor can order suspension. This temporary measure continues until the President decides based on the Supreme Court's report. 
• Suspension serves a practical purpose - it prevents a potentially compromised member from continuing in office while serious allegations are investigated, thereby protecting the commission's integrity during the inquiry period. 

Automatic Removal Provisions 

• Three Specific Circumstances 
• Article 317(3) outlines three situations where the President can directly remove a member without Supreme Court involvement: 
• Insolvency: If a member is declared insolvent by a competent court, they automatically lose eligibility to continue in office. This reflects the expectation that commission members should maintain financial integrity. 
• Outside Employment: Members cannot engage in any paid work outside their official duties during their tenure. This prohibition ensures complete dedication to commission responsibilities and prevents conflicts of interest. 
• Physical or Mental Incapacity: When the President determines that a member cannot fulfill their duties due to mental or physical infirmity, removal becomes necessary for the commission's effective functioning. 
• These provisions recognize that certain conditions fundamentally compromise a member's ability to serve effectively, making judicial inquiry unnecessary. 

Financial Interest and Misbehavior 

Conflict of Interest Rules 

• Article 317(4) addresses potential conflicts of interest by defining specific financial involvements as misbehavior. If a member has any concern or interest in government contracts, participates in profits from such arrangements, or derives benefits beyond normal corporate membership, they are deemed guilty of misbehavior. 
• This provision maintains the commission's independence by preventing members from benefiting financially from government decisions they might influence. The only exception allows normal membership benefits in incorporated companies, recognizing that complete financial isolation may be impractical. 

Constitutional Significance 

• Article 317 balances commission independence with accountability through judicial oversight. The Supreme Court inquiry requirement prevents arbitrary removal while protecting due process. Automatic removal provisions address manifest disqualifications without judicial intervention. This framework ensures Public Service Commissions maintain institutional integrity and independence in recruitment processes. The provision ultimately safeguards merit-based civil service appointments from political interference.