The Doctrine Of Pleasure In The Indian Context - Balance Between Discretion And Limitations

Numan Zargar, LL.B, School of Law, University of Kashmir

ABSTRACT

The common law principle of the “Doctrine of Pleasure” has been incorporated in the Indian Constitution by means of Article 310 on the basis of ‘public policy’, ‘public interest’ and ‘public good’. The rule embodied in Article 310(1) lays down that all civil servants and defence personnel of the Union serve ‘during the pleasure of the President’ and are subject to removal from their office if the President deems it necessary. But, this doctrine operates subject to general constitutional limitations. In order to avoid adopting the doctrine in an absolute sense, Article 311 was included in the Constitution which imposes restrictions on the exercise of powers under Article 310 and ensures that no civil servant is terminated by an authority subordinate in rank to the appointing authority. Clause (2) of the Article 311 ensures that the principles of natural justice are followed and the civil servant cannot be removed without being given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Such limitations are however taken away by the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311. Moreover, clause (c) of the second proviso Article 311(2) provides that a civil servant may be removed where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of the security of the state without holding any inquiry, recording any reasons and without following the principles of natural justice. There has been a lot of debate and research with respect to whether the doctrine is controlled by the Fundamental Rights and the scope of judicial review. The aim of this paper is to determine the scope of judicial review with respect to clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) and whether the courts can question the satisfaction of the President under the same.

Keywords: Doctrine of pleasure, article 311, president, civil servant