Astudy on the Doctrine pf pleasure
📚 Doctrine of Pleasure: A Critical Study with Case Law
⚖️ 1. Introduction
The Doctrine of Pleasure is a common law principle that says public servants hold office during the pleasure of the Crown (or President). In other words, they can be dismissed at any time without assigning any reason.
In India, this doctrine is codified in Article 310 of the Constitution, but it is subject to constitutional limitations and procedural safeguards under Article 311, especially for civil servants.
🏛️ 2. Constitutional Provisions
Article 310: All persons serving the Union or a State hold office during the pleasure of the President or Governor.
Article 311: Provides safeguards to civil servants, such as:
No dismissal or removal without inquiry and opportunity to be heard.
Exceptions: national security, or when conducting an inquiry is not practical.
📌 3. Purpose of the Doctrine
To ensure that the executive has control over its administrative machinery.
To maintain discipline, loyalty, and accountability in public service.
To differentiate between political appointments (which serve at pleasure) and civil servants, who are protected under Article 311.
⚠️ 4. Limitations and Safeguards
Though public servants hold office "at pleasure," the doctrine is not absolute in India due to:
Fundamental rights (like Article 14 – equality before law),
Judicial review,
Procedural safeguards under Article 311.
📚 5. Landmark Case Laws Explaining the Doctrine
🔹 Case 1: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) AIR 2192
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the Governor's dismissal of a probationary officer.
Issue:
Whether the Governor could act independently or only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the Governor acts only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising the pleasure doctrine.
Also emphasized that Article 311 applies even to probationary officers.
Significance:
Doctrine of pleasure is not personal discretion of the President or Governor.
Reinforced constitutional responsibility and cabinet system.
🔹 Case 2: Union of India v. Balbir Singh (1998) 6 SCC 469
Facts:
Balbir Singh, a CRPF officer, was dismissed under Article 310 without inquiry.
Issue:
Whether Article 311 applied to CRPF personnel.
Held:
The Court ruled that armed forces and paramilitary forces are excluded from Article 311 protections as per the constitutional scheme.
Hence, the pleasure doctrine applied strictly in this case.
Significance:
Explained the scope and exception of Article 311.
Reinforced the distinction between civil services and military/paramilitary.
🔹 Case 3: B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331
Facts:
Several Governors were removed from office arbitrarily by the Central Government.
Issue:
Whether the President can remove a Governor at will, invoking the doctrine of pleasure.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the pleasure of the President is not absolute.
Removal of Governors must be for valid and cogent reasons.
Significance:
Marked a constitutional limitation on the doctrine of pleasure.
Reinforced federalism and democratic values.
🔹 Case 4: State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954) SCR 786
Facts:
A government servant was removed and denied salary dues.
Issue:
Whether he could sue for salary after removal under the pleasure doctrine.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even though he held office at pleasure, he could still claim arrears of salary.
Dismissal must be done in accordance with constitutional procedure.
Significance:
Asserted the principle that rights accrued (like salary) are enforceable, even under the pleasure doctrine.
🔹 Case 5: Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (Second Principle Reiterated)
In this same case, the Court observed:
All appointments and removals must be consistent with constitutional provisions, including Articles 309–311.
The President or Governor is a constitutional head, and pleasure must be exercised with procedural fairness.
🔹 Case 6: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) AIR 1416
Facts:
Several civil servants were dismissed without inquiry in the interest of state security.
Issue:
Could the state bypass Article 311(2) using Article 310?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that where security of the state is involved, inquiry can be dispensed with.
However, reasons must be recorded, and natural justice can be curtailed only in exceptional cases.
Significance:
Clarified the balance between administrative necessity and individual rights.
⚖️ 6. Summary Table
| Case | Legal Principle / Ruling |
|---|---|
| Shamsher Singh (1974) | Pleasure is not personal; exercised on advice of ministers |
| Balbir Singh (1998) | Article 311 does not apply to armed forces |
| B.P. Singhal (2010) | Governors can’t be removed arbitrarily under pleasure doctrine |
| Abdul Majid (1954) | Salary and benefits can be claimed even after dismissal |
| Tulsiram Patel (1985) | Article 311 can be bypassed only in exceptional security cases |
🔍 7. Critical Analysis of the Doctrine of Pleasure
✅ Merits:
Ensures executive control over administrative machinery.
Helps in removing inefficient or corrupt officers.
Provides flexibility in appointments and dismissals.
❌ Demerits / Criticism:
May be misused for political retaliation or favoritism.
Undermines security of tenure, affecting morale of civil servants.
Conflicts with natural justice and procedural fairness.
Courts have had to narrow its application to prevent abuse.
🧾 8. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Pleasure, though inherited from British common law, has been significantly modified under the Indian Constitution to suit democratic and constitutional governance. While Article 310 affirms this doctrine, Articles 309 and 311 ensure that civil servants are protected from arbitrary dismissal.
The judiciary has played a key role in interpreting and limiting this doctrine, emphasizing fairness, accountability, and constitutional values. The doctrine, in its Indian form, balances executive flexibility with civil service integrity and judicial safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments