Question

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

1. State of Bihar vs. Abdul Majid (1954) clarified that the doctrine was not adopted in its entirety from English Common Law.

2. Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) emphasized that the doctrine is grounded in public policy.

3. The doctrine allows unrestricted dismissal of Chief Election Commissioners.
   

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

Answer 1

Answer:

A. 1 & 2

Understanding the Doctrine of Pleasure and its Judicial Interpretation

The Doctrine of Pleasure (Article 310)

• The 'Doctrine of Pleasure' states that government servants hold their office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be.

• This doctrine is inherited from English Common Law, where civil servants serve at the pleasure of the Crown.

• In India, this doctrine is codified in Article 310 of the Constitution.

• However, unlike the absolute nature of the doctrine in England, it is subject to the provisions of Article 311 of the Indian Constitution, which provides safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Cases

1. State of Bihar vs. Abdul Majid (1954)

• This landmark Supreme Court case was pivotal in defining the scope of the Doctrine of Pleasure in India.

• The Court clarified that the doctrine, as adopted in India, is not absolute and differs significantly from its English counterpart.

• It established that a government servant could sue the government for arrears of salary, which was not permissible under the absolute English doctrine.

• This ruling underscored that the doctrine in India is subject to constitutional limitations, particularly Article 311.

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

• This case is crucial for understanding the exceptions to the safeguards provided under Article 311(2).

• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Article 311(2).

• It emphasized that the Doctrine of Pleasure, along with the exceptions to the inquiry requirement, is grounded in public policy and the need for efficient and secure public administration.

• The second proviso allows dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of a civil servant without an inquiry under specific circumstances: (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; (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; or (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.

3. Security of Tenure for Chief Election Commissioners (CECs)

• The statement that the doctrine allows unrestricted dismissal of Chief Election Commissioners is incorrect.

• The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) enjoys security of tenure under Article 324(5) of the Constitution.

• The CEC can only be removed from office in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court.

• This involves a parliamentary impeachment process, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, and is not subject to the Doctrine of Pleasure.

• This provision ensures the independence of the Election Commission from executive influence.