INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of pleasure originated in England and came to India with the entry
of the East India Company. At that time, India was under British rule. This
doctrine owes its foundation to the Common Law. The British introduced this
doctrine in India. It is derived from the Latin phrases ‘durante bene
placito‘ and ‘durante bene placito regis‘. It means during good pleasure and
during the good pleasure of the King, respectively. The King was considered to
be the representative of God and so their decisions cannot be questioned by
others. This doctrine was developed from the concept of the Crown, and it was
thought that the king is a person who will always be infallible. It is believed that
the servants of the Crown can hold their office at its pleasure and can be dismissed
at any time the Crown wished. The tenure of the civil servants is not fixed, as they
could be removed from their service without giving notice or stating the reasons
for their termination.
In simple terms, The doctrine of Pleasure means that the Crown has the power to
terminate the services of a civil servant at any time they want without giving any
notice of termination to the servant. Thus the civil servants work at the pleasure
of the Crown which can remove them at any time. When the civil servants are
removed from their service, they do not have the right to sue the Crown for
wrongful termination and they also cannot ask for damages undergone due to
wrongful termination. This doctrine is based on the concept of public policy and
whenever the Crown feels that a civil servant should be removed from his office
because keeping him will be against public policy, the Crown can remove such
servant.
In India, during British rule, the Crown exercised this doctrine to remove any
civil servant at any time they wanted. They worked only under the goodwill of
the Crown. This doctrine was first incorporated in the Charter in 1833 and
subsequently acknowledged in British India with its insertion in Section 240 of
the Government of India Act, 1935. So it can be said that this doctrine emerged
in India before its independence.
In the case of Shenton v. Smith (1895), the Privy Council explained the doctrine
of pleasure and upheld its importance. While explaining it, the Privy Council
opined that in the absence of this doctrine, it would be difficult to remove those
public servants from their service whose continuance in the office would have a
detrimental effect on the State. In other words, it will be difficult to remove those
civil servants if it becomes mandatory to show some sort of evidence of the
offence to satisfy the court. This doctrine was again upheld in the case of Dunn v.
Queen (1896), where it was observed that public servants have no fixed tenure.
So they can be terminated from their service at any time on the Crown’s whim.
In other words, it meant that the Crown could exercise its discretionary power to
dismiss any public servant from employment. Therefore, it can be concluded that
civil servants can hold office only at the pleasure of the Crown.
The doctrine of pleasure is also followed in India. Since the President of India is
the Executive Head of the Union and he enjoys the same position as the Crown
enjoys in England, the President has been vested with the power to remove a civil
servant at any time under this doctrine. While this doctrine has been adopted in
India it has not been blindly copied in the same manner as it is followed in
England and there are some modifications which exist in India’s adoption of this
doctrine from that of England. In India, Article 310 of the Indian Constitution
embodies the provision for this doctrine. 310. Tenure of office of persons
serving the Union or a State
(1)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.
According to Article 310, except for the provisions provided by the Constitution,
a civil servant of the Union works at the pleasure of the President and a civil
servant under a State works at the pleasure of the Governor of that State. This
implies that the operation of the Doctrine of Pleasure can be limited by
constitutional provisions. Under the constitution, the following are excluded from
the operation of this doctrine:
1. Judges of the Supreme Court;
2. Judges of the High Courts;
3. Chief Election Commissioner; and
4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Thus, this doctrine is not absolute and is subject to Constitutional provisions. The
civil servants can also be excluded from the operation of this doctrine because
they have been provided with some protection under Article 311 and thus this
doctrine’s application can be limited to civil servants as well

Restrictions imposed upon the doctrine of pleasure

 The contract that has been made between the civil servants and the
government may be enforceable.
 The Indian Constitution guarantees the citizens of India certain
fundamental rights. Article 14, Article 15, and Article 16 of
the Constitution of India impose certain restrictions on the free and
unfair use of the doctrine of pleasure. This doctrine of pleasure cannot
be used without sufficient cause. Article 14 states that the use of any
principles or doctrines must be done on reasonable grounds. It prohibits
the exercise of a doctrine arbitrarily. Like Article 14, Article 15 also
prevents the arbitrary exercise of this doctrine of pleasure. This Article
has imposed certain restrictions before their termination from services
on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The
Constitution also states that all citizens must be treated equally without
any unreasonable discrimination under Article 16.
 The Indian Constitution lays down provisions to restrict the application
of the doctrine of pleasure to the tenure of the High Courts and Supreme
Court judges, the Chief Election Commissioner, the Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India, and the Chairman and Members of the Public
Service Commission

In the case of Union of India v. Balbir Singh (2017), the Supreme Court stated
that when a public servant is dismissed from his office, the reasons or grounds for
his removal will be inspected by the court. After examining the reasons, if the
court is well satisfied with them their termination will not be reversed. But if the
ground seems to be irrelevant for which he was dismissed as it does not affect the
security of the State, then the ground for the public servant’s termination will be
considered invalid.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, the rule regarding the
maintainability of a claim by the civil servant regarding arrears for salary was
decided by the Supreme Court. In England, the rule was that a servant could not
sue the Crown for arrears of salary. The same was argued in this case. A sub-
inspector had been removed from his service on the ground of cowardice and was
later re-hired. He filed a suit for recovering the arrears of his salary but the
Government contended that he cannot do so under the rule followed in the
doctrine of pleasure. The Supreme Court held that this rule would not apply in
India and thus the sub-inspector had the right to claim the arrears of his salary.
Similarly, the Court also made a judgment regarding another important provision
of the doctrine of pleasure. In the case of Union of India v. Balbir Singh, it was
held that the Court has the power to examine the satisfaction of the President or
the Governor as the case may be. If the Court finds that the satisfaction is based
on such grounds which have no relation to the security of the State then, the Court
can hold such a satisfaction to be based on irrelevant and extraneous grounds and
the dismissal of a civil servant can be held invalid.

In the case of Sunny K. George v. State Of Kerala (2016) The Kerala High Court
observed that the doctrine of pleasure does not give an unfettered right to act in
an arbitrary manner. They have no power to withdraw their pleasure at their own
discretion without appropriate reasons. It was also upheld that the removal or
dismissal of public servants from their offices can be done at the authority’s
pleasure without stating the reasons for their removal from the office, where the
authority is not required to give a notice or reason for doing so. But this does not
mean that they can exercise that power arbitrarily at any time, whenever they
want to do so, without any valid reasons or grounds for doing so. Therefore, the
Court’s ultimate conclusion was that the doctrine of pleasure does not give power
to any authority to act in an arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious manner.
In the case of Rajendra Prasad Baudh v. State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Housing (2016),
it can be concluded that the right to remove a public servant from his office is
guaranteed to authority under this doctrine of pleasure, and he can ‘at pleasure’
do that without stating reason or giving notice, but there are certain restrictions
imposed upon the authority. The authority does not have the right to dismiss a
public servant at its whim. Otherwise, the morality of this doctrine would be lost.
CONCLUSION
While the doctrine of pleasure has been adopted from the British legal system, it
has been modified to suit Indian context as per prevailing social structure in India.
The judiciary has played a key role in balancing the arbitrary aspects of this
doctrine by their power of judicial review.
While England has a Monarch as the Executive head, India elects its Executive
head through elections. So, the principle ‘the King can do no wrong’ is not
suitable to the Indian scenario. Despite the judicial intervention, the exceptions
to the protection can still be misused. Therefore instead of reviewing each and
every instance of arbitrariness, it would be better if certain guidelines are
provided which have to be followed while availing these exceptions. If these
guidelines are not followed the dismissal can be held invalid which will also
provide speedy redressal to the aggrieved party.