Doctrine of Pleasure

Definition and Origin

Article 156 (1) states that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. What does ‘pleasure of the President’ mean? There are various connotations and contexts attached to this term.

Before understanding the meaning of Doctrine of Pleasure in Indian Context, let us first understand the genesis of this term.

The origin of the Doctrine of Pleasure can be traced to a Latin Maxim durante bene placitowhich means “during good pleasure” or “during the pleasure of the appointer” as opposed to an office held dum bene se gesserit which means “during good conduct”, also called quadiu se bene gesserit (“as long as he shall behave himself well”).[1]

Black’s Dictionary defines ‘Pleasure Appointment’ as the assignment of someone to employment that can be taken away at any time, with no requirement for notice or hearing.

We have borrowed this concept from the English Law. In Dunn v. Queen[2], the Court of Appeal referred to the old common law rule that a public servant under the British Crown had no tenure but held that his position is at the absolute discretion of the Crown.

However, the Indian situation is quite different. Let us discuss how this doctrine has taken shape in India.

Application of Doctrine of Pleasure in India

There are three kinds of Offices held during the Pleasure of the President that are referred to in our Constitution.

1. Offices held during the pleasure of the President without any restrictions – Article 75(2) relating to ministers, Article 76 (4) relating to Attorney General and Article 156(1) relating to Governors. There are no restrictions whatsoever. The Governors and Ministers can be dismissed summarily by the President.

2. Offices held during the pleasure of the President with restrictions – “The pleasure of the President is clearly controlled by the provisions of Art. 311, and so, the field that is covered by Art. 311 on a fair and reasonable construction of the relevant words used in that article, would be excluded from the operation of the absolute doctrine of pleasure. The pleasure of the President would still be there, but it has to be exercised in accordance with the requirements of Art. 311”[3]. This includes Members of defence service, Members of civil service of the Union, Member of an All-India service, holders of posts connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, Member of a civil service of a State and holders of civil posts under the State.

3. Appointments to which the said doctrine is not applicable – This includes constitutional functionaries such as the Supreme Court Judges, the High Court Judges, the Election Commissioners, the Comptroller and Auditor General etc. that cannot be removed except by way of Impeachment.

Doctrine of Pleasure in relation to the Governor

It is the first scenario (pleasure of the President without any restrictions) that we are concerned with in the present post. We see that there is no such thing as absolute and unfettered discretion in India. There is a distinction between the doctrine of pleasure as it existed in a medieval set-up and the doctrine of pleasure in a democracy governed by Rule of Law. Where Rule of Law prevails, there is nothing like unrestricted discretion or unaccountable action. The degree of need for reason may vary. The degree of scrutiny during judicial review may vary. But the need for reason exists.

Thus where there are no express limitations or restrictions existing, it should be read as being subject to the “fundamentals of constitutionalism”.

In the case of B.P. Singhal v. Union of India & Another[4], the court has categorically stated that the ‘Doctrine of Pleasure’ in its absolute unrestricted application does not exist in India. The court further said that:

“The said doctrine is severely curtailed in the case of government employment, as will be evident from clause (2) of Article 310 and clauses (1) and (2) of Article 311[5]. Even in regard to cases falling within the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311, the application of the doctrine is not unrestricted, but moderately restricted in the sense that the circumstances mentioned therein should exist for its operation.”

Even the Canadian Supreme Court in Wells v. Newfound land[6] has concluded that “at pleasure” doctrine is no longer justifiable in the context of modern employment relationship.

B.P. Singhal’s Case also held that the doctrine of pleasure is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words, “at pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an Authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. However, the withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons.

Thus, we see that Doctrine of Pleasure refers to the discretion vested in the President to remove various constitutional functionaries. Article 156 merely mentions that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President. It does not prescribe any conditions for exercising this pleasure. However, this does not mean that the discretion is absolute, unrestricted and unfettered. The President can remove a Governor summarily but valid explanation for such removal must exist.

It is important to note that most of things mentioned above have been discussed and mentioned in the B.P. Singhal’s Case. It was a Constitutional Bench Judgment and is considered to be a landmark case on the Doctrine of Pleasure. In the next post, we will study the Constituent Assembly Debates relating to the Doctrine of Pleasure and the scope of Judicial Review in such cases.

[1] Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398.

[2] 1896 (1) QB 116.

[3] Moti Ram v. N.E. Frontier Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600.

[4] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 296 of 2004.

[5] Article 311 (2) – Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State:

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.”

[6] 1999 (177) DL (4th) 73(SCC).