Question

Which of the following statements are correct regarding the Doctrine of Pleasure?

i. The Doctrine of Pleasure is derived from the British legal system but modified for India.

ii. Article 310 applies to members of All India Services and Civil Posts under the Centre and States.

iii. The tenure of High Court Judges is subject to the pleasure of the President.

iv. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) held that the Doctrine of Pleasure is based on public policy.

v. Article 311 provides safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal.

• A. i, ii, iv, and v
• B. i, iii, and iv
• C. ii, iii, and v
• D. i, ii, and iii

Answer 1

Answer:

A. i, ii, iv, and v

Doctrine of Pleasure: Key Aspects for Competitive Exams

• Origin and Indian Context: The Doctrine of Pleasure, a concept rooted in the British legal system, has been adopted and adapted in India. It essentially means that government employees hold their office at the pleasure of the appointing authority (usually the President or Governor), implying they can be removed without cause, subject to constitutional safeguards.
• Article 310 of the Constitution: This article enshrines the Doctrine of Pleasure. It states that every person who is a member of a defence service or holds a civil service under the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President, or, as the case may be, of the Governor of the State. This applies to members of All India Services and civil posts under the Centre and States.
• Exceptions to the Doctrine: While the doctrine allows for removal at pleasure, the Indian Constitution provides significant exceptions, primarily through Article 311. These safeguards ensure that civil servants are not dismissed or reduced in rank arbitrarily.
• Article 311 Safeguards: This article is crucial for understanding the limitations on the Doctrine of Pleasure. It mandates that a civil servant:
  • Shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
  • Shall not 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.
• Judicial Interpretation - Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985): The Supreme Court in this landmark case clarified the scope and application of the Doctrine of Pleasure. It held that the doctrine is based on public policy and that the procedural safeguards under Article 311 are mandatory and cannot be bypassed. The court also elaborated on the circumstances under which the inquiry might not be necessary, but these are strictly defined.
• Inapplicability to Certain High Constitutional Offices: It is important to note that the Doctrine of Pleasure, as applied to civil services, does not extend to certain high constitutional functionaries like Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, the Chief Election Commissioner, etc. These offices have specific removal procedures outlined in the Constitution, often involving impeachment or similar processes, and are not subject to the pleasure of the President. Therefore, statement (iii) is incorrect as High Court Judges' tenure is governed by specific constitutional provisions, not the President's pleasure.
• All India Services: Members of All India Services (like IAS, IPS, IFoS) are covered under Article 310 and are subject to the Doctrine of Pleasure, albeit with the protections of Article 311.