Question

Which landmark case clarified that the Doctrine of Pleasure in India is based on public policy rather than feudal or prerogative principles?

• A. State of Bihar vs. Abdul Majid (1954)
• B. Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
• C. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Babu Ram (1961)
• D. Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India (1958)

Answer 1

Answer:

B. Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985)

Understanding the Doctrine of Pleasure

• The Doctrine of Pleasure, derived from English common law, states that government employees hold office during the 'pleasure' of the President (at the Union level) or the Governor (at the State level).
• In England, it was an absolute prerogative of the Crown, meaning public servants could be dismissed at any time without cause or notice.
• In India, this doctrine is enshrined in Article 310 of the Constitution.
• Article 310(1) states that every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President, and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.

Significance of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985)

• This landmark Supreme Court case provided crucial clarity on the nature and scope of the Doctrine of Pleasure in India.
• The Court emphatically ruled that the Doctrine of Pleasure in India is not based on feudal or prerogative principles, as it was in England, but rather on public policy considerations.
• It emphasized that the primary purpose of this doctrine in India is to ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the administration and to maintain discipline and integrity within the public services.
• The judgment clarified that while the doctrine grants the executive the power to remove employees, this power is not absolute and is subject to constitutional safeguards.
• The case extensively dealt with the provisos to Article 311(2), which provide exceptions to the general rule of holding an inquiry before dismissal or reduction in rank.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions and Safeguards

• Article 311 of the Indian Constitution acts as a significant safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of the Doctrine of Pleasure.
• Article 311(1) protects civil servants by stating that no person holding a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
• Article 311(2) mandates that no such person shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
• The Tulsiram Patel case specifically interpreted the three provisos to Article 311(2), which allow for dismissal without an inquiry under certain exceptional circumstances:
  • Proviso (a): Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.
  • Proviso (b): Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.
  • Proviso (c): Where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
• The judgment underscored that even under these provisos, the decision must be based on objective satisfaction and not mere whim or caprice, and it is subject to judicial review, though limited.

Impact and Legacy

• The Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel case is crucial for understanding the delicate balance between the state's power to manage its civil services and the constitutional protection afforded to government employees against arbitrary action.
• It reinforced the principle that while the Doctrine of Pleasure exists, its application in India is circumscribed by the rule of law and constitutional provisions, particularly Article 311.