Question

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

1. The Doctrine of Pleasure allows the President to terminate civil servants without notice.

2. The doctrine is derived from the British legal system but has been modified for the Indian context.

3. Article 311 completely eliminates the application of the Doctrine of Pleasure for civil servants.

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

Answer 1

Answer:

A. 1 & 2

Understanding the Doctrine of Pleasure in India

• The Doctrine of Pleasure is a principle inherited from English Common Law, specifically from the concept that a civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the Crown.

• In India, this doctrine is codified under Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, which 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, for state services, they hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.

• While the doctrine, in its fundamental essence, implies that the services of a government employee can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason, its application in India is not absolute.

Safeguards under Article 311:

• The seemingly absolute power granted by Article 310 is significantly curtailed by Article 311 of the Constitution. Article 311 provides important constitutional safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.

• According to Article 311, a civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

• Furthermore, a civil servant cannot 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. This ensures due process.

Exceptions to Article 311:

• Despite the safeguards, Article 311 also lists certain exceptions where these protections might not apply. These include cases where a person is dismissed or removed on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.

• Another exception is when the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.

• Lastly, if 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.

• Therefore, while the Doctrine of Pleasure (Article 310) theoretically allows termination, Article 311 acts as a proviso or a limitation, ensuring that the power is exercised fairly and not arbitrarily. It *modifies* the doctrine for the Indian context rather than eliminating it.

• It is important to note that the Doctrine of Pleasure in India is a qualified pleasure, meaning it is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review, unlike the absolute pleasure of the Crown in the UK.