This article is written by Joyleen Meki, A 2nd-year student of BA.LLB studying at Lovely Professional University, Punjab. This article discusses the doctrine of pleasure and the exceptions to it.
DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE AND EXCEPTIONS TO IT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIA.
In England, there was a moral code that a royal official should hold office as long as it pleased the Crown and could be terminated at any time by the Crown for any reason. In other words, officers cannot claim salary delinquency or early termination damages upon dismissal from service. Constitutional status was given to the public service. In India, Article 310 of the Indian Constitution contains provisions for this doctrine. The doctrine of pleasure is also defended in India. Since the President of India is the Chief Executive of the Union and occupies the same position as the British Crown, according to this doctrine, the President is empowered to remove officials at any time.
Exceptions to the doctrine of pleasure
The doctrine of pleasure is subject to other explicit provisions of the Constitution, and Article 310(1) Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State:
According to Section 310, federal officers shall serve at the discretion of the President and state officers shall serve at the discretion of the Governor, except as provided in the Constitution. This means that the application of hedonism may be restricted by constitutional provisions. Under the Constitution, the following are excluded from the application of this doctrine:
- Supreme Court Judges Article 124
- Auditor General (Article 148)
- High Court Judges (Article 217,218)
- A member of the Public Service Commission (Article 317)
- The Chief election commissioner
Article 311 of the Constitution of India:
To ensure that the interests of civil servants are protected, protections are given under Article 311 of the Constitution, but there are some exceptions to these protections. If these exceptions occur in the case, the officer concerned cannot claim protection. Exceptions are:
If a public official is found guilty of a crime, in these cases protection cannot be claimed according to article 311. Appointments of civil servants may therefore not be voluntarily terminated unless the mandatory provisions of section 311 are complied with. This pleasure principle is further constrained by the general laws of the country. The law gives every officer the power to sue in court to enforce his term of service and recover overdue payments. The power to remove officers at will is not, as the case may be, a personal right of the President or Governor. This is an executive power exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The pleasure doctrine contained in Section 310, as a constitutional provision, cannot be overridden by any legislative or administrative action. Section 309 should therefore be read in accordance with Section 310.
Article 311 ensures that the two branches of government can maintain their respective identities. By granting public servants this protection, public confidence in the public service is maintained and they are also assured that they can perform their duties honestly in accordance with this principle without fear of unjust or unlawful dismissal.
Article 311 makes it more difficult for one to file lawsuits against Public Officials hence removing some of the exceptions will be a great deal.
Judicial Perspective on Doctrine of Pleasure in India
The judiciary plays a very important role in India by performing the function of interpreting laws. The pleasure doctrine has been adopted from English law, but in various cases, the judiciary has ruled on the applicability of this doctrine in India.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, the Supreme Court has ruled on rules to uphold claims of officials for the delinquency of salaries. In England, there was a rule that servants could not sue the king for nonpayment of wages. Again, there was some discussion. One of his sub-inspectors was dismissed from his post for cowardice and later reinstated. He filed a lawsuit to recover his unpaid salary, but the government argued that he could not do so under the hedonistic rule. The Supreme Court ruled that the rule did not apply in India. As a result, the sub-inspector had the right to request arrears.
The Supreme Court similarly ruled on another important clause of the doctrine of pleasure In the case of the union of India v. Balbir Singh, the court ruled that it had the power to investigate the satisfaction of the president or governor, as the case may be. If the court determines that the satisfaction is based on reasons unrelated to national security, the court may attribute such satisfaction to irrelevant and irrelevant reasons and void the dismissal of the public employee.
The doctrine of pleasure was adopted from the British legal system but adapted to the Indian context according to the prevailing social structure of India. The judiciary, through its powers of judicial review, has played an important role in balancing the arbitrary aspects of this doctrine. Therefore, rather than reviewing the arbitrariness of each individual, it would be better to provide specific guidelines to follow when claiming these exemptions.
- K.C.JOSHI THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA
Author: Joyleen Meki,
LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY, 2ND YEAR STUDENT