An analysis of Doctrine of Pleasure: A comparative study on the position in India and UK
What is the Doctrine of Pleasure
The phrase derives from the Latin durante bene placito (“during good pleasure”) — meaning that certain public servants hold their office as long as the appointing authority (the Crown in UK, or the President/Governor in India) is pleased; i.e., their tenure is at the will/discretion of that authority.
In effect, it gives the executive power to dismiss or remove such servants without cause, sometimes even without notice, unless restricted by statute or constitutional provision.
Position in the UK
In the UK, this doctrine is part of the traditional common law inherited from monarchical prerogative. Civil/public officers hold their offices at the pleasure of the Crown (or the relevant appointing authority).
Unless there is a statute which provides otherwise (i.e. specifying fixed terms, protections, conditions of removal, etc.), the Crown (or the government acting in name of or via Crown) can dismiss officers at pleasure.
Key features in UK:
Absolute unless limited by statute: If Parliament enacts a law giving protections, then those limit the doctrine.
No inherent obligation to assign reason: Unless statute says, the Crown need not give reasons for removal.
Limited judicial oversight: Courts respect the prerogative but can review if there is statutory provision, or if the dismissal violates some legal obligation or is done mala fide, or violates procedural fairness imposed by law.
Contractual rights often secondary: Even if there is a contract, the doctrine can supersede unless the contract or statute modifies it.
Several UK cases have dealt with aspects of this (such as Shenton v. Smith etc.), though many older ones. (I’ll mention a few when discussing comparative cases.)
Position in India
India adopted the doctrine in its Constitution, but with modifications, limitations, and safeguards.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 310: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every person who is a member of the civil service of the Union, or the Defence Services, or of an All‑India Service, or holds any civil post under the Union or a State, holds office during the pleasure of the President, or as the case may be, the Governor.” Thus, the doctrine is explicitly embodied in the Indian Constitution. The Hindu+4Legal Service India+4Legal Services India+4
Article 311: Provides important safeguards / restrictions when a civil servant is dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank. Clauses include (a) protection against dismissal/ removal by subordinate authority, (b) that no such dismissal/reduction without an inquiry, etc. Trend Research Journal+3Legal Service India+3iledu.in+3
Also, Article 309 gives power to legislatures to make rules regarding recruitment and conditions of service. These acts/rules must conform to Articles 310 & 311. Legal Service India+2Indian Kanoon+2
Key Differences / Limitations vs UK
In India, the doctrine is not absolute because of constitutional limitations (especially via Article 311). UK doctrine is more flexible in the sense that protections must come via statute, but there is no written constitution restraining Crown power in a general sense.
Indian doctrine must be “subject to what is expressly provided by the Constitution”. Thus, only those limitations which are expressly in the Constitution or through rules under constitutional powers are valid. iPleaders+3Indian Kanoon+3Legal Services India+3
There is judicial review in India where the doctrine is abused: where reasons are irrelevant, mala fide, or the procedure under Article 311 not followed. UK also has review but different in nature because of parliamentary sovereignty.
Key Case Laws (India) — Detailed
Here are several important Indian cases, with detailed explanation, which illustrate how the doctrine is interpreted and limited in India.
Case 1: State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954)
Facts: A police sub‐inspector was dismissed on grounds of cowardice. He was later reinstated. He also sought arrears of salary for the period during which he was out of service. The government resisted the arrears, invoking doctrine of pleasure (arguing that the Crown/President can dismiss without liability).
Issues: (i) Does service at pleasure mean that a public servant cannot claim salary for the period out of service (i.e. can’t sue for arrears)? (ii) Is the doctrine of pleasure absolute in Indian law?
Decision: The Supreme Court held that although a servant holds his office "during the pleasure", that does not automatically mean that he has no legal remedy or that salary claims cannot be enforced. The Court said that even under the pleasure doctrine, statutory or contractual rights (or inherent rights under law) permitting recovery of salary (or damages) survive. The Court refused to apply the doctrine slavishly as in English law. Thus, doctrine of pleasure is not an absolute bar. The Hindu+2Lawfoyer+2
Significance: This case is a cornerstone because it immediately qualifies the doctrine: service at pleasure does not mean no remedy. It asserts that Indian law has not adopted the English doctrine in its full rigour. It provides that legal rights (like salary claims) are protected even if service is at pleasure.
Case 2: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), 3 SCC 398
Facts: Several government servants were dismissed/removed or reduced in rank. The issue was to examine the doctrine of pleasure in relation to Articles 310 & 311, particularly the second proviso to Article 311(2). The question was how far the constitutional restrictions limit the doctrine, and what procedural protections are guaranteed.
Issues: (i) Can the doctrine of pleasure be exercised arbitrarily, or is it subject to the constitutional safeguards under Article 311? (ii) What kind of process is required before dismissal / removal? (iii) Whether the second proviso to Article 311(2) is valid.
Decision / Ratio:
The doctrine of pleasure is part of India's Constitution under Article 310, but it operates except as expressly provided by the Constitution. So constitutional safeguards (Articles 309, 311 etc.) form part of constraint. iPleaders+2Indian Kanoon+2
Article 311(2) second proviso has three clauses; it permits dispensing with inquiry under certain circumstances (e.g., if authority thinks inquiry is not possible or in the interest of public service) but even then subject to satisfaction of authority, and recording of reasons. Indian Kanoon+1
The doctrine must be construed in favour of government servants in cases of doubt, particularly regarding the limitations (i.e. constitutional safeguards). In general, procedural fairness must be ensured when removal is under Article 311. Indian Kanoon+1
Significance: Tulsiram Patel clarifies the extent of protections under Article 311, and that service at pleasure is not unfettered. It also allows that under some specified conditions, inquiry may be dispensed with, but only subject to strict constitutional conditions (recorded reasons, etc.).
Case 3: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
Facts / Issue: A civil servant was dismissed, his removal challenged on grounds that not only was it done without following proper procedure but also possibly mala fide. The question was whether the pleasure doctrine allows arbitrary dismissal.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that the power given under Article 310 must be exercised in accordance with Article 311; that is, although service is “during pleasure”, the Constitution imposes constraints. Notably, governors/president must act on advice of Council of Ministers. Also various constitutional functionaries (e.g. certain judges, etc.) are excluded. The power is not personal whim.
Significance: Reinforcement of the constitutional limitations—making sure that dismissal under doctrine of pleasure follows due process, is not arbitrary or mala fide.
Case 4: Union of India v. Balbir Singh
Facts: A civil servant’s removal was challenged; service under pleasure was invoked. The government had declined to hold an inquiry, relying on some discretion. The question: whether the court can examine whether the satisfaction of the President/Governor declining inquiry is based on relevant grounds or irrelevant ones.
Decision: The Court held that the satisfaction must not be based on irrelevant grounds; if it is, then the action can be declared unlawful. Also, the courts have the power to review whether the prerequisites (such as requirement of inquiry, hearing, etc.) have been met.
Significance: Emphasizes judicial review and that pleasure is not beyond scrutiny, especially when constitutional safeguards are engaged.
Case 5: Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways etc.
Facts / Issues: Involved removal / dismissal of servant; question of whether rules under Article 309 can prescribe authority or manner in which the pleasure can be exercised; to what extent service rules limit executive power; whether delegates can dismiss, or whether only appointing authority can.
Decision: The Court held that rules under Article 309 or laws made under legislative competence can regulate conditions of service, including manner of dismissal or removal. The power of dismissal under doctrine of pleasure is subject to these rules. Importantly, authority to dismiss may be delegated (under rules made under Article 309), but subject to constitutional provisions (e.g. not to subordinate authority below the appointing authority, etc.).
Significance: This case clarifies that even though office is held during pleasure, parliament/state legislatures can make service rules that regulate how that pleasure is to be exercised: who exercises it, how, with what procedure, etc.
Key Case Laws (UK) — Some Examples
To give contrast, here are some UK/English cases that illustrate how doctrine works traditionally:
Shenton v. Smith (1895): A leading English case (often cited in Indian judgments) in which the House of Lords / Judicial Committee considered the doctrine of pleasure. The doctrine was upheld that civil servants hold office during pleasure, and the Crown/prerogative power to dismiss at pleasure is recognised, subject to any statutory limitations. This is often cited as showing the unmodified common law position. (Often in Indian cases, this case is used as reference for English common law doctrine.)
Gould v. Stuart (1896): Similar in the UK context, showing that regulations establishing conditions and qualifications for service can impose restrictions on the pleasure doctrine (e.g. that dismissal must follow regulations).
There are also statutes in UK that protect certain public servants or give them rights of notice, review, or fixed terms, which limit the doctrine. For example, where a statute provides for fixed term appointment or requires process for removal.
Comparative Analysis: Key Contrasts
| Feature | UK Doctrine (Traditional/Common Law) | India (Constitutional Doctrine) |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Common law / prerogative of Crown; Parliament can enact statutes to modify. | Constitutional – Article 310 gives doctrine; Articles 311 etc. impose limitations. |
| Absoluteness | More absolute by default unless limited by statute. Can dismiss without cause or notice unless statute says otherwise. | Not absolute: subject to constitutional safeguards; dismissals must follow certain procedure when Article 311 applies. |
| Judicial Review | Courts limited; if no statute provides protections, Crown's power is often final. But Parliament sovereign, so legislative protections possible. | Strong judicial review: courts can invalidate dismissals if constitutional safeguards are violated, if mala fide or irrelevant satisfaction etc. |
| Procedural Protections | More variable; depends whether statute or contract imposes it. | Article 311 ensures protections (not subordinate authority act, opportunity of hearing, etc.). Also rules under Article 309 can define authority and procedure. |
| Rights of Public Servant for Remedies | Limited in UK common law for arbitrary removal; remedies exist only as per statute/contract. | Indian law allows claims: e.g. arrears of salary, reinstatement, damages, if applicable; courts enforce rights. |
More Detailed Cases (India) — Additional Ones
Here are more than the five above, to give richer picture.
Case 6: R.P. Raja vs State of Bihar (1986)
Court’s holding: That Articles 310 and 311 must be read together. Where Article 311(2) applies, the pleasure under Article 310 must be exercised in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Also that the pleasure of President/Governor cannot be extended or delegated beyond constitutional limits. Indian Kanoon
Case 7: Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab
Facts: A civil servant's removal was challenged; issue whether removal was mala fide, or whether proper process was followed.
Decision: The court held that an act of dismissal that is mala fide (i.e. with bad faith) is subject to judicial review. Even under the pleasure doctrine, arbitrary acts are examinable.
Case 8: Purushottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
Facts / Issues: This case deals with whether doctrine of pleasure in India is same as UK etc., whether the protection under Article 311 etc apply.
Decision / Significance: The court explained that Indian doctrine of pleasure differs from English common law doctrine; constitutional safeguards exist; doctrine of satisfaction etc.
How the Doctrine Operates: Some Key Principles
From the cases, the following principles emerge in India:
Service “during pleasure” does not mean “at will, without any legal constraint”. The Constitution ensures constraints.
Articles 310, 309, 311 are interlinked: Article 309 allows legislatures to frame service rules; Article 311 provides protection; these must be consistent with the doctrine but also restrict it.
Mala fides / Irrelevant grounds: The satisfaction of the President/Governor (or the authority empowered) must not be based on irrelevant or extraneous factors; courts can test that.
Delegation limitations: The authority to dismiss can only be exercised by the authority as per law or rules; subordinate authorities cannot dismiss if constitution provides otherwise.
Opportunity to be heard: In most cases under Article 311, a government servant must be given a notice, chance to explain, etc. But Article 311 second proviso allows some dispensation under strict conditions.
Claims for arrears etc.: Even if someone is removed under doctrine of pleasure, he may have claims (salary etc.) if removal was wrongfully done or statutory right to salary exists.
Summary / Conclusion
The doctrine of pleasure is a legal mechanism giving certain executive power to remove public servants, rooted in common law and prerogative power in UK and incorporated into Indian law.
However, India’s constitutional framework modifies and limits the doctrine significantly compared to the UK’s traditional common law position.
Constitutional provisions such as Articles 310 & 311, plus service rules under Article 309, give service‐holders certain protections absent in UK doctrine unless modified by statute.
Courts in India have emphasized that the doctrine cannot be used for arbitrary dismissals, that procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards must be respected, and that judicial review is available.
RELATED Blog
0 comments