Doctrine of pleasure under Article 310
Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 310
What is the Doctrine of Pleasure?
The Doctrine of Pleasure means that civil servants hold their offices during the pleasure of the President or the Governor (depending on whether it is the Union or State Government). This doctrine is embodied in Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, which states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defense service or holds any civil post under the Union or a State shall hold office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be.”
Key Points:
Scope: It applies to all civil servants under the Union and States, including government employees and members of defense services.
At Pleasure: The President or Governor can remove these officers at any time without assigning reasons, reflecting the "pleasure" doctrine.
Subject to Constitution: However, this pleasure is not absolute and is subject to other constitutional provisions, laws, and protections such as those in Articles 311 and service rules.
Protection against Arbitrary Removal: Article 311 protects certain civil servants from arbitrary dismissal by requiring an inquiry before removal, except in cases where the President or Governor is satisfied that it is not feasible.
Important Case Laws on Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 310
1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831
Facts: Shamsher Singh, a civil servant, was dismissed without inquiry by the State Government.
Issue: Whether the dismissal without inquiry violated Article 311.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that under Article 310, a civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the President or Governor. However, Article 311 protects certain categories of civil servants from dismissal or removal without inquiry except in specific circumstances.
Significance: This case clearly distinguished between the Doctrine of Pleasure (Article 310) and protection against dismissal (Article 311), showing that the pleasure is not absolute.
2. State of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao (1966) 1 SCR 446
Facts: Govinda Rao was removed from service without a proper inquiry.
Issue: Whether the removal was valid under Article 310.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while the doctrine of pleasure applies, if the conditions of Article 311 are applicable, the officer is entitled to an inquiry before removal.
Significance: The ruling reaffirmed the constitutional safeguards and emphasized that the pleasure doctrine is subject to constitutional protection.
3. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Facts: An army officer was dismissed without holding an inquiry.
Issue: Whether such dismissal without inquiry was valid under Article 310.
Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines that dismissal or removal without inquiry violates Article 311 unless the President or Governor is satisfied that inquiry is not feasible in exceptional circumstances.
Significance: This case reinforced that the doctrine of pleasure is limited and procedural safeguards apply, especially to permanent civil servants.
4. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1972) 3 SCC 390
Facts: The petitioner was removed from service during the pleasure of the Governor.
Issue: Whether the pleasure doctrine permits arbitrary removal.
Judgment: The Court held that although the doctrine permits removal at pleasure, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a mala fide manner.
Significance: This case clarified that the pleasure must be lawful and not exercised in bad faith or arbitrariness.
5. K. S. Krishnan v. Union of India (1962) 2 SCR 655
Facts: The appellant was removed from service without a show-cause notice.
Issue: Whether such removal was valid under Article 310.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while the doctrine of pleasure allows removal at the pleasure of the President, natural justice requires that some notice or explanation be given, except in cases of exceptional urgency.
Significance: This case extended the scope of natural justice within the framework of the doctrine of pleasure.
Summary of Doctrine of Pleasure with Case Law Insights
| Aspect | Explanation | Key Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Doctrine Basics | Civil servants hold office during pleasure of President/Governor (Article 310). | Shamsher Singh |
| Protection Against Arbitrary Removal | Removal requires inquiry under Article 311 unless exempted. | Tulsiram Patel, Mysore v. Govinda Rao |
| Natural Justice | Even under Article 310, principles of fairness apply; some notice or explanation is necessary. | K. S. Krishnan |
| Non-arbitrariness | The pleasure cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mala fide. | K.C. Vasanth Kumar |
RELATED Blog
0 comments