BharatNotes What is Doctrine of Pleasure?
The Doctrine of Pleasure holds that government servants serve at the will, or "pleasure," of the executive head of State. Under Article 310(1) of the Constitution of India, every member of the defence services, the civil services of the Union or a State, and holders of posts connected with defence or civil affairs holds office during the pleasure of the President (Union) or the Governor (State). The doctrine is borrowed from English common law, where Crown servants could be dismissed at the Crown's will without reason or right to compensation — a position articulated by the Privy Council in Shenton v. Smith (1895).
How the Indian Position Differs
Unlike the unqualified English rule, the Indian doctrine is not absolute. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (AIR 1961 SC 751) held that the pleasure under Article 310 is subject to other provisions of the Constitution, chiefly Article 311. Article 311 grants civil servants two procedural safeguards:
| Safeguard | Provision |
|---|---|
| No dismissal/removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority | Article 311(1) |
| No dismissal, removal or reduction in rank except after an inquiry giving a "reasonable opportunity of being heard" | Article 311(2) |
Thus the executive's "pleasure" is constrained by natural justice. In State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (AIR 1954 SC 245), the Court further held that a dismissed servant could recover arrears of salary — a remedy unavailable under the strict English doctrine.
Exceptions and the Second Proviso
Certain functionaries are deliberately kept outside the Doctrine of Pleasure to safeguard their independence:
- Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts — removable only by impeachment (Articles 124 and 217)
- Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) — Article 148
- Chief Election Commissioner — Article 324
- Chairman and members of Public Service Commissions — Article 317
Conversely, the second proviso to Article 311(2), in its present form shaped by the 42nd Amendment (1976), allows dismissal without inquiry in three situations: (a) conviction on a criminal charge; (b) where holding an inquiry is "not reasonably practicable" (reasons recorded in writing); and (c) where, in the interest of the security of the State, the President or Governor is satisfied that an inquiry is not expedient. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), a Constitution Bench upheld these exceptions, ruling that a constitutional provision may validly exclude the audi alteram partem rule.
UPSC Angle
For Prelims, master the article numbers and the list of exempted functionaries — a common distractor is wrongly including the CAG or judges under the doctrine. For Mains (GS2), the analytical thread is the balance between administrative flexibility (Article 310) and protection against arbitrary action (Article 311), and how the second proviso narrows that protection in defined circumstances. This is a foundational concept underpinning questions on civil services accountability and constitutional safeguards for public servants.
