Doctrine of Pleasure in Indian Constitution
📘 Doctrine of Pleasure in the Indian Constitution
1. Meaning of the Doctrine of Pleasure
The Doctrine of Pleasure is a common law principle that means a civil servant or government servant holds office “during the pleasure” of the sovereign—in India’s case, the President or the Governor.
Under this doctrine, the government can terminate the services of an employee without assigning any reason, unless there are statutory or constitutional protections in place.
2. Origin of the Doctrine
Derived from English common law where the Crown had absolute authority to remove government servants at will.
It was a feature of the British administration and was adopted with modifications in India after independence.
3. Doctrine of Pleasure in the Indian Context
In India, the doctrine is not absolute. It is qualified and subject to constitutional limitations, especially Article 311.
4. Relevant Constitutional Provisions
🟢 Article 310 – Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State
“Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defense service or civil service of the Union or of a State shall hold office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor…”
Thus, government servants hold office “during the pleasure” of:
The President (for Union services),
The Governor (for State services).
🛡️ Article 311 – Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities
Provides protections against arbitrary dismissal:
No government servant shall be dismissed, removed, or demoted without an inquiry.
The employee must be informed of the charges and given an opportunity to be heard.
Therefore, Article 311 limits the absolute power under Article 310.
5. Key Elements of Doctrine in India
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| General Rule | Government servant holds office at the pleasure of the President/Governor |
| Limitation | Cannot be exercised arbitrarily due to Article 311 |
| Exceptions | Military personnel and persons not protected by Article 311 |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts can review violations of Article 311 or arbitrariness |
6. Important Case Laws
🔹 Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
Facts: Questioned whether the Governor can act independently under Article 310.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor and President must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and not independently.
The doctrine of pleasure is subject to constitutional procedures, especially Article 311.
🔹 Union of India v. Balbir Singh (1998)
Held: Article 310 cannot be used to override the safeguards provided under Article 311.
Reinforced that the pleasure doctrine is not absolute and must follow due process.
🔹 S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)
Emphasized the importance of natural justice.
Even under the doctrine of pleasure, a fair hearing is essential before dismissal.
🔹 State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954)
The Supreme Court held that a government servant wrongfully dismissed is entitled to recover arrears of salary.
This decision limited the application of the pleasure doctrine and gave strength to judicial remedies.
7. Application and Exceptions
✅ Where Doctrine Applies:
President/Governor may remove officers serving at their pleasure, subject to constitutional safeguards.
Applies to civil servants, defense personnel, and certain public office holders.
❌ Where Doctrine Doesn’t Apply:
Judges of High Courts and Supreme Court, Election Commissioners, CAG, etc.
These posts have fixed tenure and removal procedures under the Constitution (e.g., impeachment).
8. Comparison with UK Doctrine of Pleasure
| Aspect | UK (Crown’s pleasure) | India (Qualified Doctrine) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of power | Absolute | Subject to constitutional safeguards |
| Judicial Review | Limited | Available (Articles 311, 14, 21) |
| Termination Process | No inquiry needed | Inquiry and fair hearing mandatory |
9. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Pleasure in India reflects a balance between administrative flexibility and employee protection. While Article 310 grants the executive the power to terminate services, Article 311 ensures that such termination is fair, just, and not arbitrary. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and limiting this doctrine to prevent abuse of power and ensure the rule of law.
🔍 Quick Summary
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Origin | English common law |
| Indian Provision | Article 310 – doctrine of pleasure |
| Limitation | Article 311 – safeguards for civil servants |
| Key Case Law | Shamsher Singh, Balbir Singh, Abdul Majid |
| Exceptions | Judges, CAG, EC, etc. have constitutional protection |
| Nature in India | Qualified, not absolute |
RELATED Blog
0 comments