A critical analysis on doctrine of pleasure D
Critical Analysis of the Doctrine of Pleasure
1. Introduction: What is the Doctrine of Pleasure?
The Doctrine of Pleasure is a constitutional and administrative law principle that states that certain public servants hold office during the pleasure of the appointing authority, usually the President or Governor. This means:
Their tenure is at the will or pleasure of the executive.
They can be removed at any time, without cause or inquiry.
It is a tool for the executive to maintain control over administration.
This doctrine is especially relevant to civil servants, ministers, and other government officials in many Commonwealth countries, including India, UK, and others.
2. Origin and Purpose
Originates from English common law and was transplanted to Commonwealth countries.
Ensures the executive’s control over administration.
Allows flexibility and discipline in civil service.
Balances the need for efficient governance against security of tenure.
3. Criticism of the Doctrine
Arbitrariness: Allows dismissal without reason, violating principles of natural justice.
Undermines security of tenure and independence of civil servants.
Potential misuse for political or personal motives.
Conflicts with rule of law and constitutional safeguards.
Calls for judicial review and exceptions have arisen.
4. Modern Trends: Judicial Moderation
Courts have increasingly read limitations into the doctrine.
Dismissals must not be wholly arbitrary, mala fide, or without application of mind.
Reasonable opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem) is often required.
Statutory modifications (Civil Service Rules) also regulate removals.
5. Key Case Law on the Doctrine of Pleasure
Case 1: State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967)
Facts: A teacher holding office at pleasure was dismissed without hearing.
Issue: Whether dismissal without hearing violated natural justice.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that even under the doctrine of pleasure, dismissal cannot be arbitrary or mala fide.
The employee is entitled to reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Significance: Introduced natural justice safeguards into the doctrine.
Case 2: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts: Civil servant removed from service under doctrine of pleasure.
Issue: Whether dismissal is subject to judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the doctrine is subject to statutory rules and fundamental rights.
Dismissal can be challenged if arbitrary or violative of constitutional rights.
Significance: Affirmed limits to the doctrine based on constitutional protections.
Case 3: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Although primarily about personal liberty, the case emphasized procedural fairness in administrative action.
Courts broadened due process, indirectly impacting the doctrine.
Significance: Administrative decisions including removals must meet fairness and reasonableness tests.
Case 4: Pritam Singh v. Union of India (1965)
Held that even if an office is held at pleasure, dismissal must not be arbitrary.
The doctrine does not confer unlimited power to the executive.
Case 5: Bhagat Ram v. Union of India (1954)
Court held that dismissal without inquiry in pleasure posts is valid if the appointment is clearly under the pleasure clause.
But courts maintain power to examine malafides or violation of statutory rules.
6. Critical Analysis and Observations
| Aspect | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Scope of Doctrine | Initially broad and unrestricted; courts have introduced limitations for fairness. |
| Security of Tenure | Weak under doctrine; however, modern law tries to protect against arbitrariness. |
| Judicial Review | Not ousted; courts can review dismissal for mala fide, non-application of mind, violation of fundamental rights. |
| Rule of Law | Doctrine sometimes conflicts with rule of law but judicial interpretation ensures balance. |
| Public Interest | Doctrine serves executive control for efficiency but can be misused politically. |
| Natural Justice | Courts increasingly insist on hearing and reasoned decisions even under doctrine. |
7. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Pleasure remains a significant constitutional concept giving executives control over civil servants. However, it is not absolute. Judicial trends ensure it is exercised fairly, reasonably, and without malafide intent. It reflects a balancing act between administrative control and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments