Karnataka High Court: Striking a blow against the rampant corruption prevalent in the executive, the Court while deciding the instant case concerning a member of Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) being suspended on the charges of corruption by the Governor observed that Article 317(2) and the Constitution at large should be given a dynamic and purposive interpretation rather than a rigid textual interpretation and observing thus the Court therefore upheld the suspension of the petitioner under Article 317(2).
The basis for the impugned order was an allegation of corruption against the petitioner during the selection of Gazetted Probationers which had caused the Governor to order her suspension under the provisions of Article 317(2). The petitioner’s counsel K.V. Dhananjaya argued that an order of suspension must be preceded by a reference made by the President to the Supreme Court and mere request by the Governor to the President to make a refrence does not amount to the reference as stated in Article 317(1), while Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General, representing the State refuted the contention. Interpreting Art. 317, the Court observed that the order of suspension by the Governor is binding until an order is issued by the President after receiving a report from the Supreme Court. The Court further observed that Article 317(2) is silent as to when the reference by President to the Supreme Court would commence therefore the provision has a connotation of a continuing circumstance, the starting point of which would be when the Governor makes a request to the President to make a reference. The Court also stated that the provision of suspension must be interpreted in a way so as to give positive content to the power of the Governor and the Governor therefore need not wait for an actual reference by the President. Mangala Shridhar v. Karnataka Governor, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 3872, decided on 23.09.2014
To read the full Order, refer SCC OnLine
