Introduction

The doctrine of pleasure been adopted from the British legal system. It has been modified to suit Indian context as per prevailing social structure in India.

What is the Doctrine of Pleasure?

• The doctrine of Pleasure means that the Crown has the power to terminate the services of a civil servant at any time they want without giving any notice of termination to the servant and thus a civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the Crown.
• This doctrine is based on public policy.

What are the Constitutional Provisions in Relation to Doctrine of Pleasure?

• As per Article 155 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the Governor of a State is appointed by the President and holds the office during the pleasure of the President.
• Article 310 of the COI states that the civil servants (members of the Defence Services, Civil Services, All-India Services or persons holding military posts or civil posts under the Centre/State) hold office at the pleasure of the President or the Governor as the case may be.

What are the Restrictions on the Doctrine of Pleasure?

• The COI lays down the following restrictions on the exercise of this doctrine:
  • The pleasure of the President or Governor is controlled by the provisions of the Article 311 of the COI, so the field covered by Article 311 is excluded from the operation of this doctrine.
  • The tenure of the Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Chief Election Commissioner are not dependent on the pleasure of the President or the Governor as the case may be. These posts are excluded from the operation of the doctrine of pleasure.
  • This doctrine is subject to Fundamental Rights.
  • Article 311 of the COI provides the following safeguards to civil servants against any arbitrary dismissal from their posts:
    • It imposes restrictions on the removal of a civil servant.
    • It provides for civil servants being given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing on the charges against them.

What are the Landmark Case Laws of Doctrine of Pleasure?

• State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954):
  • The Supreme Court held that in relation to the Doctrine of Pleasure, the English Common Law has not been adopted in its entirety and with all its rigorous implications.
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985):
  • The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of pleasure was neither a relic of the feudal age nor was it based on any special prerogative of the British Crown but was based upon public policy.