Crime Branch vs Kerala PSC: Who will blink first in probe into irregularities?

Thiruvananthapuram: The standoff between the Crime Branch and the Kerala Public Service Commission over the questioning of its members in the Planning Board examination irregularities case is set to intensify, with the investigating agency refusing to yield and preparing to ask the members to appear before it for questioning.

Sources familiar with the developments said the Crime Branch is all set to write to the PSC members, making it clear that they will have to come to the Crime Branch headquarters to give their statements.

The move comes after the PSC conveyed that its members would not appear at the Crime Branch office and that they were willing to cooperate if the investigators came to the PSC headquarters instead.

The emerging confrontation is now turning into a test of authority between a constitutional recruitment body and a criminal investigation agency.

The Crime Branch is understood to be of the view that the constitutional status of the PSC does not confer any special protection on its chairman or members from being questioned in a criminal investigation.

The agency is also maintaining that proceedings before a Legislative Assembly committee and a criminal investigation are entirely different and cannot be equated.

The PSC, however, has relied on its constitutional status and protocol to resist the summons.

The Commission had earlier taken a similar stand when its secretary was summoned by the Assembly Petitions Committee.

The High Court had subsequently ruled that the secretary need not appear, taking into account the constitutional status of the PSC.

The Crime Branch is not treating that order as a bar to its investigation.

The agency has already registered a case over the alleged irregularities in the Planning Board recruitment examination, though no one has so far been named as an accused.

The SIT headed by IG Ajitha Beegam has been examining the role of PSC officials and members in the controversial examination and selection process.

The questioning of the Commission members is being viewed as a crucial next step.

The investigators had initially decided to question the members involved in the process and subsequently record the statement of PSC Chairman M.R. Baiju, who had personally conducted the interview for the post.

The Crime Branch has already identified serious lapses in the evaluation process and sought action against officials found responsible.

It has also sought a review of two appointments made on the basis of the controversial examination.

With the PSC refusing to come to the Crime Branch headquarters and the agency preparing to reiterate its demand, the immediate question is who will blink first.

The dispute could ultimately move into the legal arena if the two sides fail to resolve the issue.

For the Crime Branch, allowing the PSC's position to prevail could complicate the investigation into the examination irregularities.

For the PSC, appearing before the police could set a precedent concerning the manner in which members of a constitutional body are questioned.

As the clock ticks, the next communication from the Crime Branch to the PSC members could, therefore, determine whether the confrontation ends in compliance, negotiation or a fresh legal battle.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]