Also Read - Allahabad High Court Bars Government Servant from Contesting Salary Denial after Voluntary Retirement Granted on Basis of Regularised Unauthorised Absence

Counsel for the KPSC responded that, if any party could object to the Governor’s exercise of power, it must be the State, because all questions concerning the validity of gubernatorial actions arise when the Governor acts without the aid and advice of the Council.

The Additional Government Advocate, representing the State of Karnataka, was asked by the court whether the suspension order had been made with the aid and advice of the Ministers. The AGA sought time to obtain instructions and submitted that the State would not rely on oral directions alone. The judge accepted this request, stating that the State would not be permitted to proceed on the basis of unverified oral instructions, and directed the AGA to file the necessary documentation supporting the claim of aid and advice.

Also Read - MP High Court Seeks State Response on PIL Concerning Teacher Vacancies

Court’s Directions and Next Steps

Justice Govindaraj ordered that the matter be relisted for further hearing on 20 July 2026. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, were granted liberty to file their statement of objections by that date. The court also directed the AGA to place on record any orders, resolutions, or communications demonstrating that the Governor’s decision to suspend the KPSC Chairman was taken after consultation with the Council of Ministers.

Legal Questions Under Consideration

The principal issue before the court is whether the Governor possessed the authority to suspend the Chairman of the KPSC before a presidential reference under Article 317(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner’s case hinges on the contention that such suspension, if undertaken without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, exceeds the Governor’s constitutional powers. The State’s defence will need to establish that the Governor acted in accordance with the aid and advice clause, thereby rendering the suspension valid.

Also Read - Allahabad High Court Clarifies Inference of Penetration from Alleged Bleeding in POCSO Cases

Implications of the Order

If the court ultimately finds that the Governor’s order was issued without the requisite ministerial advice, the suspension could be set aside, restoring the Chairman to his position pending any further proceedings under Article 317(2). Conversely, a finding that the aid and advice requirement was satisfied would uphold the Governor’s action and allow the disciplinary process to continue. The outcome will also clarify the scope of gubernatorial authority in relation to constitutional bodies such as the Public Service Commission, particularly concerning interim measures that precede a presidential reference.

The parties are now required to substantiate their positions with documentary evidence before the next date of hearing, ensuring that the court’s determination is based on a complete record rather than oral assertions.

Also Read - Gujarat High Court Seeks Medical Report on Narayan Sai in Surat Rape Case