New Delhi, August 29, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has refused to remove Mepung Tadar Bage, Member of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC), in response to a Presidential Reference. The Court held that the charges against her related to the 2022 Assistant Engineer (Civil) examination paper leak were not proved, and thus did not satisfy the constitutional grounds for removal under Article 317(1) of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The Presidential Reference was made following a recommendation by the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, who acted upon a letter from the Chief Minister alleging misconduct by Ms. Bage in the handling of the exam. The issue was referred to the Supreme Court under Article 316(1)(b), which requires the President to seek the Court’s opinion before removing a Public Service Commission member on grounds of misbehavior.
Bench and Proceedings
A Bench consisting of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar examined the evidence and submissions thoroughly. After evaluating the material provided by both the government and the respondent, the Court found no concrete evidence of misbehavior or incapacity as mandated under Article 317(1).
Constitutional Provisions Involved
- Article 316(1)(b): Provides that a member of a Public Service Commission can only be removed by the President after the Supreme Court’s opinion on proven misbehavior or incapacity.
- Article 317(1): Details the grounds and procedure for removal of Public Service Commission members by the President.
- Article 320: Defines the functions of Public Service Commissions, emphasizing their autonomy.
Verdict Highlights
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting the independence of constitutional bodies like the Public Service Commissions. The Court clarified that removal from office must be based on clear and convincing evidence of misbehavior or incapacity, not merely allegations or administrative dissatisfaction.
Legal Representation
The respondents were represented by Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate Manish Goswami, and a team of advocates including Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Raman Yadav, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Chitvan Sinhal, and Kartikay Aggarwal.
The petitioner was represented by Courts Motion.
Significance
The judgment reinforces judicial safeguards against arbitrary removal of members of constitutional bodies, thereby protecting their autonomy and ensuring the fair functioning of democratic institutions.