doctrine of pleasure

Under English law the Crown could dismiss its servants at will. Article 310 adopts the rule: members of the defence and civil services of the Union hold office during the pleasure of the President, and of a State during the pleasure of the Governor. In India the pleasure is limited by Article 311: no civil servant may be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the appointing one, or without an inquiry with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, except in the cases in the second proviso.

In Tulsiram Patel the Supreme Court upheld dispensing with inquiry under that proviso, subject to judicial review. In B.P. Singhal it held that the removal of a Governor at the President's pleasure (Article 156) still cannot be arbitrary or mala fide.

Example

Though the officer held office under the doctrine of pleasure in Article 310, his dismissal without an inquiry violated Article 311(2).

In Indian law

• Articles 310 and 311, Constitution of India
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 INSC 155
• B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, 2010 INSC 286

See also

due process of law · equality before law

Read more in the study notes

• The Governor (Constitutional Law II)
• Services under the Union and States: protection of civil servants (Constitutional Law II)
• Civil service: meaning, features, functions and the civil service in India (Political Science - Organisation and Institution)