A critical study on doctrine of pleasure
📚 A Critical Study on the Doctrine of Pleasure
🏛️ I. Introduction to the Doctrine of Pleasure
➤ What is the Doctrine of Pleasure?
The Doctrine of Pleasure is a constitutional principle under which civil servants or government employees hold office "during the pleasure of the President or Governor", meaning they may be dismissed at any time without reason, unless statutory protection applies.
➤ Origin:
Derived from British Constitutional Law, where public servants are considered to serve at the pleasure of the Crown.
In the UK, civil servants can be removed without prior notice, unless limited by statutory provisions.
📜 II. Doctrine of Pleasure under the Indian Constitution
➤ Article 310 – Tenure of office
“Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defense service or civil service of the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor.”
➤ Article 311 – Safeguards for civil servants
Provides procedural safeguards for civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.
✅ Thus, while Article 310 grants doctrine of pleasure, Article 311 limits it by introducing principles of natural justice and due process.
⚖️ III. Critical Analysis
| Aspect | Critique |
|---|---|
| Origin in monarchy | Inapplicable in modern democracies where rule of law prevails. |
| Potential for misuse | May allow arbitrary dismissals unless protected by Article 311. |
| Balanced by safeguards | Indian Constitution provides checks through Article 311 and courts. |
| Applicable scope | Not applicable to Constitutional functionaries, judges, contractual employees, or those protected under statutes. |
🔍 IV. Key Features in Indian Context
It is not absolute — judicial review is available.
Article 310 applies to civil and defence services, not to constitutional authorities (like Judges, EC, CAG, etc.).
The government cannot act arbitrarily; actions must be based on public interest and legal justification.
📂 V. Landmark Case Laws (More than 4 with Detailed Explanation)
1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
Facts: Punjab Government dismissed judicial officers under the pleasure doctrine without inquiry.
Issue: Can the Governor exercise pleasure independently or must act on advice of the Council of Ministers?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Significance:
Limited arbitrary use of pleasure doctrine.
Ensured cabinet responsibility in exercising pleasure.
2. Union of India v. Balbir Singh (1998) 5 SCC 216
Facts: A member of the paramilitary force was dismissed invoking Article 310 without following due process.
Issue: Can Article 310 override the protections granted by service rules?
Holding:
Court held that Article 310 is subject to Article 311, and where service rules or statute provide protections, they must be followed.
Significance:
Reinforced that doctrine is not absolute.
Due process must be observed.
3. Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1958) SCR 828
Facts: A railway employee was removed without inquiry.
Issue: Whether removal without inquiry violated Article 311.
Holding:
Court distinguished between temporary and permanent employees and stated that protection under Article 311 is available only in case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.
Significance:
Clarified scope of protection under Article 311.
Laid down tests for applicability of the pleasure doctrine.
4. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954) SCR 786
Facts: A civil servant sought recovery of salary after wrongful dismissal.
Issue: Whether salary can be recovered after removal under the doctrine of pleasure.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that civil servants can claim salary if removal was unlawful.
Significance:
A blow to absolute pleasure doctrine.
Established that civil servants have enforceable rights.
5. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331
Facts: Governors of certain states were removed without stated reasons by the Union Government.
Issue: Whether the President can remove Governors at pleasure without justification.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that pleasure is not absolute, and removal must be based on valid and compelling reasons.
Significance:
Brought constitutional functionaries under judicial scrutiny.
Marked a significant limit on arbitrary executive action.
6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Facts: Civil servants dismissed without inquiry under exceptions to Article 311(2).
Issue: Whether pleasure doctrine applies when principles of natural justice are bypassed.
Holding:
Court upheld the dismissals but emphasized that exceptions to natural justice must be construed narrowly.
Significance:
Balanced security concerns with employee rights.
Further interpreted Article 311(2) provisos.
📌 VI. Limitations of the Doctrine of Pleasure
Subject to Article 311 – Civil servants are protected from arbitrary dismissal.
Judicial Review – Courts can quash dismissals violating natural justice or done with malice.
No application to constitutional posts like Judges, CAG, EC.
Statutory Limitations – Service rules and statutes override arbitrary exercise.
🧾 VII. Conclusion: A Balanced Doctrine
The Doctrine of Pleasure in India is not absolute, unlike its British counterpart. It exists within a constitutional framework, restricted by Articles 309–311, judicial review, and natural justice principles.
✅ Critical Observations:
The doctrine allows administrative flexibility, especially in defense or sensitive services.
However, unchecked application could lead to executive overreach.
The Indian judiciary has played a key role in ensuring the doctrine is constitutionally and legally balanced.
RELATED Blog
0 comments