Question

Which of the following statements are correct about the Doctrine of Pleasure in India?

1. It is based on public policy as established in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985).

2. The English Common Law version of the doctrine was fully adopted in India.

3. Governors hold office at the pleasure of the President under Article 155.
   

• A. 1 & 3
• B. 2 & 3
• C. 1 & 2
• D. All are correct

Answer 1

Answer:

A. 1 & 3

The Doctrine of Pleasure in India

• The 'Doctrine of Pleasure' is a concept derived from English common law, which states that government servants hold office at the pleasure of the Crown. In India, this doctrine is enshrined in Article 310 of the Indian Constitution.
• According to Article 310, civil servants of the Union and the States hold office during the pleasure of the President and the Governor, respectively. However, unlike the English common law, this pleasure is not absolute and is subject to the safeguards provided under Article 311.

Key Aspects and Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 310: This article 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. Similarly, persons holding civil posts under a State hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
• Article 311: This article provides significant constitutional safeguards to civil servants, acting as a check on the absolute power granted by Article 310. It stipulates that:
  • No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds 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.
  • No such person shall be dismissed or 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.
• There are certain exceptions to Article 311(2), known as the 'proviso to Article 311(2)', where an inquiry is not necessary. These include cases of conviction on a criminal charge, where it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry, or where the President or the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985):

• This is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that thoroughly examined the scope and limitations of the Doctrine of Pleasure and the provisos to Article 311(2).
• The court upheld the constitutional validity of the provisos, emphasizing that the application of these exceptions must be based on public policy considerations and the proper exercise of discretion.
• The judgment clarified that while the pleasure doctrine exists, its exercise is not arbitrary and must conform to the principles of natural justice, unless specifically excluded by constitutional provisions for compelling public reasons (e.g., security of the state, practical impossibility of inquiry). Thus, the doctrine, though rooted in pleasure, is ultimately balanced by public policy and constitutional checks.

Governors and the Doctrine of Pleasure:

• As per Article 155 of the Indian Constitution, the Governor of a State is appointed by the President.
• Article 156 explicitly states that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. This means the President can remove a Governor at any time without assigning any reason. This particular aspect of the pleasure doctrine is often a point of contention in Centre-State relations.
• It is important to note that the English Common Law version of the doctrine, which allowed for absolute and unfettered discretion, was not fully adopted in India. The Indian Constitution significantly modified it by incorporating safeguards for civil servants under Article 311, thereby making it a qualified doctrine rather than an absolute one.