Doctrine of Pleasure across Public Offices: Civil Servants, Governors, Law Officers and Nominated Members

The doctrine of pleasure is usually studied as an incident of civil service law, through Article 310 and the qualification imposed by Article 311. That treatment is incomplete, because the Constitution uses the same device for a range of offices that have nothing to do with the civil services, and the consequences differ sharply according to the office. A Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President under Article 156 but is not a government servant at all. The Attorney General and the Advocate General hold office during pleasure with no procedural protection whatever. A nominated member of a local body may be removed at pleasure without any hearing. This topic examines the doctrine across those offices and asks what determines how much protection each attracts.

1. Where the Constitution Uses the Device

Office	Provision	Protection attaching
Civil servants of the Union and the States	Article 310	Article 311 safeguards; rules under Article 309 have the force of law
Members of the defence services	Article 310	Article 311 does not apply to them; service law and the governing Acts apply
Governor of a State	Article 156(1)	No hearing and no reasons required, but the pleasure may not be exercised arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons
Attorney General for India	Article 76(4)	None; holds office during the pleasure of the President
Advocate General for a State	Article 165(3)	None; holds office during the pleasure of the Governor
Ministers	Articles 75(2) and 164(1)	None; hold office during pleasure, though in practice on the Prime Minister's or Chief Minister's advice
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts	Articles 124 and 217	Expressly excepted; removable only by the prescribed process
Comptroller and Auditor General; Chief Election Commissioner; PSC members	Articles 148, 324(5) and 317	Expressly excepted; removal only through the prescribed constitutional route

The pattern is that the pleasure applies by default and the exceptions are those offices whose independence from the executive is the point of the office. Judges, the auditor, the election authority and the public service commissions are all bodies that exist to scrutinise or restrain the executive, and each is accordingly taken out of the pleasure and given a removal process the executive cannot control.

2. The Governor: Pleasure without Employment

📖 Hargovind Pant v. Dr. Raghukul Tilak, (1979) 3 SCC 458

Facts: The appointment of a person as Governor of a State was challenged on the ground that he held an office of profit under the Government of India, since Article 158(2) provides that the Governor shall not hold any other office of profit, and it was contended that the office of Governor is itself an employment under the Government of India, so that a person holding another office could not be appointed and the Governor is in substance a servant of the Union.

Held: The Supreme Court rejected the contention and explained the character of the office. It held that the Governor is not an employee or a servant of the Government of India: he occupies a high constitutional office with important constitutional functions and duties, he is not amenable to the directions of the Government of India, and he is not accountable to it for the manner in which he carries out his functions. The office is one of independent constitutional existence, and the fact that he is appointed by the President and holds office during the President's pleasure does not convert him into a subordinate of the Union Government, since the pleasure is a mode of tenure and not an index of employment. The Court held that the office of Governor is therefore not an office of profit under the Government of India for the purposes of Article 158(2).

Ratio: The Governor holds an independent constitutional office and is not an employee or servant of the Government of India. Holding office during pleasure describes the tenure and does not make the holder a subordinate of the appointing authority.

The consequence, worked out later in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331, is that the pleasure under Article 156 is not absolute: it cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or for extraneous reasons, and a Governor may not be removed merely because a new Government has come to power or because his views differ from its policies. But no reasons need be given and no hearing is required, so review is limited to cases where a prima facie showing of arbitrariness leads the Court to call for the material.

3. Nominated Office: Pleasure at its Widest

📖 Om Narain Agarwal v. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur, (1993) 2 SCC 242

Facts: Members nominated to a municipal board under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act were removed by the State Government before the expiry of the term, under a provision permitting the Government to remove a nominated member at any time without assigning reasons. The removals were challenged on the ground that they had been effected without notice and without any opportunity of being heard, and that the provision was arbitrary.

Held: The Supreme Court upheld the removals and the provision. It held that a nominated member does not hold his position by virtue of an election or a right of any kind, but as the result of an act of nomination that the nominating authority may recall; the provision permitting removal at pleasure was therefore neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, since the nature of the office itself justifies the mode of removal. The Court held that no notice and no opportunity of hearing were required before such removal, because the removal carries no stigma and involves no imputation of misconduct; nothing is decided against the member, and no civil consequence of the kind that attracts natural justice follows. It distinguished the position of an elected member, who holds office by virtue of the electorate's choice and cannot be removed in that manner.

Ratio: A nominated member may be removed at pleasure without notice or hearing, since the removal carries no stigma and decides nothing against him. An elected member stands differently, holding office by virtue of election.

4. What Determines How Much Protection Attaches

The source of the office. An office held by election or by a right attracts protection; one held by nomination or appointment at pleasure attracts less.
Whether removal carries a stigma. Where the removal imputes misconduct or unfitness, natural justice applies; where it decides nothing against the person, it does not (Om Narain Agarwal).
Whether civil consequences follow. Loss of earned benefits, forfeiture or a disqualification brings the removal within the safeguards.
Whether the Constitution provides otherwise. Articles 311, 124, 148, 317 and 324(5) each displace the pleasure to the extent they provide.
Whether the office exists to check the executive. Independence-securing offices are excepted from the pleasure precisely for that reason.
Whether rules having the force of law govern the removal, since the pleasure is exercised subject to rules made under Article 309 or a statute.

5. The Gradations in Practice

Degree of protection	Offices	What is required
Fullest	Judges, CAG, CEC, PSC members	Removal only by the prescribed constitutional process; pleasure excluded
Substantial	Civil servants	Article 311 inquiry, notice of charges, reasonable opportunity, and compliance with the service rules
Limited	Governors	No hearing and no reasons, but the pleasure may not be arbitrary, capricious or for extraneous reasons
Minimal	Nominated members of local and statutory bodies	Removal at pleasure without notice, provided no stigma attaches
None in form	Attorney General, Advocate General, Ministers	Pleasure operates directly; the constraints are political rather than legal

6. The Common Limits

The pleasure must be exercised by the authority in whom it is vested, and on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers where the Constitution so requires.
It cannot override an express constitutional provision, so Article 311 prevails over Article 310 and the excepted offices remain excepted.
It cannot override rules having the force of law made under Article 309 or under a statute.
It cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons, since the rule of law governs every exercise of public power.
Articles 14 and 16 apply, so a removal that is discriminatory or without any determining principle is bad.
Mala fides vitiate it, and a removal shown to be a device to punish a lawful decision will not stand.
Where a stigma attaches, natural justice follows, whatever the office, since the removal then decides something against the person.

⚠ The pleasure describes a tenure; it does not describe a relationship

The most useful correction to the usual treatment of this doctrine is the one Hargovind Pant supplies. Holding office during pleasure is often read as making the holder a subordinate or an employee of the appointing authority, and that inference is wrong. A Governor holds office during the President's pleasure and is not an employee of the Union, is not subject to its directions and is not accountable to it for the discharge of his functions. What the pleasure fixes is the security of the tenure, that is, how the office may be brought to an end. It says nothing about the holder's relationship to the appointing authority during it, and confusing the two produces the mistaken conclusion that an office held at pleasure is an office held in subordination.

7. The Position in Summary

The Constitution applies the doctrine of pleasure to civil servants under Article 310, to Governors under Article 156, to the Attorney General and Advocate General under Articles 76(4) and 165(3), and to Ministers, while expressly excepting the independence-securing offices.
A Governor holds an independent constitutional office and is not an employee of the Government of India; the pleasure describes his tenure and not a relationship of subordination (Hargovind Pant).
A nominated member of a statutory body may be removed at pleasure without notice or hearing, since the removal carries no stigma and decides nothing against him (Om Narain Agarwal).
The protection attaching depends on the source of the office, whether a stigma or civil consequence follows, whether the Constitution provides otherwise, whether the office exists to check the executive, and whether rules having the force of law govern removal.
Common limits apply throughout: the pleasure cannot override the Constitution or rules having the force of law, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mala fide, is subject to Articles 14 and 16, and yields to natural justice where a stigma attaches.

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 310 (Topic 143) and Civil Services (Topic 142).
Dismissal vs Removal (Topic 145): punitive and non-punitive endings of service.
UPSC and State Public Service Commissions (Topic 146): an excepted office.
Comptroller and Auditor General (Topic 154): another excepted office.
Parliamentary Control over the Executive (Topic 150): the political constraints on the pleasure.
Constitution of India: Articles 75, 76, 124, 148, 156, 158, 164, 165, 217, 309, 310, 311, 317 and 324.