Doctrine of Pleasure under Article 310: Origin in England, Reception in India and its Constitutional Limits

The doctrine of pleasure is the rule that a servant of the State holds office only so long as the State wishes, and may be dispensed with without cause and without remedy. It came into Indian law from England, where it grew out of the prerogative and was justified not as a privilege of the Crown but as a requirement of public policy, since the Crown must be able to remove anyone whose continuance is against the public interest. India received the doctrine in Article 310 and then qualified it almost immediately, by Article 311, by the rule-making power in Article 309, and by the general application of Articles 14 and 16. What survives is a pleasure that must be exercised through law rather than in spite of it. This topic sets out the doctrine, its English origin, its Indian reception and the limits now placed on it.

1. The Provision

Article 310

Clause (1) provides that, except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an All India Service, or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President; and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. Clause (2) provides that, notwithstanding that a person holds office during pleasure, any contract under which a person not being a member of a defence or civil service is appointed to hold a post requiring special qualifications may provide for compensation if, before the expiry of an agreed period, the post is abolished or he is required to vacate it for reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part.

Two features of the text control everything that follows. The pleasure is expressed to operate except as expressly provided by this Constitution, which admits the exceptions the Constitution itself creates. And Article 311 opens with notwithstanding anything in Article 310, so that where the two meet, Article 311 prevails.

2. The English Origin

At common law a servant of the Crown held office durante bene placito, during good pleasure, and could be dismissed at will. The rule was not confined to those in politically sensitive posts and applied to the whole civil service. Its consequences were severe: a Crown servant could not sue for wrongful dismissal, a stipulation for a fixed term did not bind the Crown, and arrears of salary were at one time held not to be recoverable as of right.

The justification offered was public policy rather than royal privilege. The reasoning was that the Crown must be able to dispense immediately with the services of anyone it considers unfit, since the public interest may require an officer's removal in circumstances that cannot be proved in a court or disclosed in public, and that the ability of the executive to govern would be impaired if every dismissal could be litigated. Later statutes, and in modern times employment legislation and the ordinary principles of judicial review, have substantially qualified the rule, and the position of a civil servant in England today is regulated largely by statute rather than by the bare prerogative.

3. The Doctrine in India: Pleasure through Law

📖 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751

Facts: A Sub-Inspector of Police was dismissed following a departmental enquiry, and the enquiry had not been conducted in the manner required by the rules framed under the Police Act. The State contended that since the officer held office during the pleasure of the Governor under Article 310, the pleasure could be exercised without regard to the rules, and that a breach of the rules therefore did not invalidate the dismissal; the rules were said to be merely administrative directions binding on nobody.

Held: The Supreme Court held the dismissal bad. It held that although Article 310 preserves the doctrine of pleasure, the pleasure is not unrestricted: it is subject to what is expressly provided by the Constitution, and Article 311 is such a provision, operating notwithstanding Article 310. Further, rules made under Article 309 or under a statute regulating conditions of service are rules having the force of law, and where such rules prescribe the manner in which an enquiry is to be conducted before a servant is dismissed, the Government is bound by them and cannot ignore them by invoking the pleasure. A dismissal in breach of such rules is therefore invalid, and the servant may obtain a declaration to that effect.

Ratio: The pleasure under Article 310 is exercised subject to the Constitution and to the rules having the force of law made under Article 309. The Government cannot escape the procedure it has itself prescribed by pleading the pleasure.

4. The Modern Limits: Pleasure Is Not Arbitrary

📖 B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331

Facts: Following a change of Government at the Centre, the Governors of several States were removed before the expiry of their five-year terms, apparently because their views were regarded as out of sympathy with the policies of the new Government. Article 156(1) provides that the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President. The removals were challenged, and the question referred to a Constitution Bench was whether that pleasure is unfettered and whether its exercise is open to judicial review.

Held: The Constitution Bench held that the doctrine of pleasure, as it operates under the Indian Constitution, is not an unrestricted or absolute power. It held that the pleasure is subject to the fundamental principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law, so that it cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, whimsically or for an extraneous or irrelevant reason; the power must be exercised in a reasonable and bona fide manner for compelling reasons. At the same time the Court held that the President is not required to assign reasons for the removal and that the person removed has no right to be heard, so the exercise cannot be scrutinised as an ordinary administrative order. Judicial review is therefore limited: where a prima facie case of arbitrariness or bad faith is made out, the Court may require the Government to produce the material, and if it discloses that the removal was for an extraneous or arbitrary reason, the removal may be set aside. The Court added that a Governor cannot be removed merely because he is out of sympathy with the policies of the Government of the day or because a new Government has come to power.

Ratio: The pleasure doctrine in India is subject to the rule of law and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons, though no reasons need be given and no hearing is required; judicial review is available on a limited basis where a prima facie case of arbitrariness is shown.

5. England and India Compared

Basis	England	India
Source	Royal prerogative at common law, now largely statutory	Article 310, an express constitutional provision
Scope	Applied to the whole civil service	Applies to defence services, All India Services and civil posts under the Union and the States
Express exceptions	Created by statute over time	Created by the Constitution itself, chiefly Article 311
Procedural safeguards	Supplied by statute and the ordinary law of employment	Entrenched in Article 311(2) and in rules under Article 309
Effect of service rules	Binding as terms of employment or by statute	Rules under Article 309 have the force of law and bind the Government (Babu Ram Upadhya)
Remedy for wrongful dismissal	Historically none; now statutory remedies	Declaration that the order is void, reinstatement, and writ relief
Review of the exercise	Ordinary principles of judicial review	Limited review for arbitrariness and bad faith (B.P. Singhal)
Underlying justification	Public policy	Public policy, subject to the rule of law and constitutional limits

6. The Exceptions Expressly Provided by the Constitution

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, removable only by the process in Articles 124 and 217.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, under Article 148, removable in the like manner as a Judge.
The Chief Election Commissioner, under Article 324(5), removable in the like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge, with other Election Commissioners not removable except on his recommendation.
Chairman and members of the Public Service Commissions, under Article 317, removable only by the President on a reference to and report of the Supreme Court.
Civil servants generally, to the extent of the safeguards in Article 311, which operate notwithstanding Article 310.
Persons appointed on contract under Article 310(2), who may be given a right to compensation on abolition of the post or on being required to vacate it for reasons unconnected with misconduct.

7. What the Doctrine Still Does

Proposition	Position
A civil servant has a contractual right to continue in office	No; the tenure is during pleasure
A fixed term agreed by the Government binds it absolutely	No, subject to Article 310(2) compensation
The pleasure can override Article 311	No; Article 311 operates notwithstanding Article 310
The pleasure can override rules made under Article 309	No (Babu Ram Upadhya)
The pleasure can be exercised arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons	No (B.P. Singhal)
Reasons must be given when a Governor is removed	No, but the material may be called for on a prima facie case
A legislature can abolish the pleasure by ordinary law	No; it is a constitutional provision
Articles 14 and 16 apply to its exercise	Yes, as to all State action

⚠ The pleasure survives as a rule about tenure, not as a licence

It is easy to conclude from the qualifications that the doctrine has been emptied of content, and that is not quite right. What Article 310 still does is deny any civil servant a vested contractual right to remain in office: he cannot sue for breach of a promise of tenure, cannot enforce a fixed term against the Government, and holds his post subject to the State's continuing decision to retain him. What it no longer does is permit that decision to be taken in defiance of law. The Government must follow Article 311 where the action is punitive, must comply with the rules it has made under Article 309, and must not act arbitrarily or on extraneous grounds. The doctrine therefore governs the nature of the tenure while the Constitution governs the manner of ending it.

8. The Position in Summary

Article 310 preserves the doctrine of pleasure for defence services, All India Services and civil posts under the Union and the States, except as expressly provided by the Constitution.
The doctrine came from the English common law, where it rested on public policy rather than royal privilege, and has since been substantially qualified there by statute.
In India the pleasure is subject to Article 311, which operates notwithstanding Article 310, and to rules made under Article 309 which have the force of law and bind the Government (Babu Ram Upadhya).
The pleasure is not absolute: it is subject to the rule of law and cannot be exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or for extraneous reasons, though no reasons need be given and judicial review is limited (B.P. Singhal).
The Constitution itself excepts Judges, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Chief Election Commissioner and the members of the Public Service Commissions, and Article 310(2) permits compensation under certain contracts.

9. Related Topics and Provisions

Civil Services and Public Servants (Topic 142): the whole scheme of Articles 309 to 311.
Departmental Enquiry (Topic 144) and Dismissal vs Removal (Topic 145).
Rule of Law (Topic 8) and Dicey's Rule of Law (Topic 9): the limits on discretionary power.
Abuse of Administrative Discretion (Topic 51): arbitrariness and extraneous considerations.
Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness under Article 14 (Topic 56).
Constitution of India: Articles 14, 16, 124, 148, 156, 217, 309, 310, 311, 317 and 324.