DOCTRINE OF

PLEASURE
Presented To: Shruti Dasgupta Ma'am
Presented By: Hiral Agrawal & Komal Gupta
Introduction
- Originated from England.
- Crown was not anserwable to anyone for his/ her
actions.
- In India, it is based on the same principle.
- But instead of crown, in India, it is the President who has
the power.
Doctrine of pleasure is embodies under art. 310(1) of the Indian
Constitution.

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.
State of U.P. v. Sardari Lal v.
Babu Ram Upadhya Union of India
The Supreme Court observed that the power of the
Governor to dismiss at pleasure, subject to the provisions of
Article 311, is not an executive power under Article 154, but a
constitutional power and is not capable of being delegated
to officers subordinate to him.
FUrther, in this case Supreme Court also
stated that the executive functions of the
nature entrusted by certain articles in which
the President has to be satisfied per sonally
about the existence of certain facts or state of
affairs cannot be delegated by him to anyone
else.
Jayantilal Amratial Shodhan
v. F.N. Rana (Jayantilal
Amritlal)
The powers of the President under Article 311(2)
cannot be delegated. But these propositions were
described as not correct and are no longer good law
after the decision in Samsher Singh v. the State of
Punjab". In that decision, the propositions were
reformulated.
 State Of Bihar v. Abdul Majid
The Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid refused to follow this
rule of the Doctrine of pleasure. In this case sub-inspector of police was dismissed
from service on the ground of cowardice, was later reinstated in service. But the
government contested his claim for arrears of salary for the period of his dismissal. The
Supreme Court in this case upheld his claim arrears of salary on the ground of contract
or quantum muruit i.e for the value of the service rendered.
 Om Prakash v. State of
Uttar Pradesh
It was held that when dismissal of a civil servant
was found to be unlawful, he was entitled to get
his salary from the date of dismissal to the date
when his dismissal was declared unlawful.
 Union of India v. Balbir Singh
The Supreme Court held that the Court can examine the
circumstances on which the satisfaction of the president or
Governor. If the Court finds that the circumstances have no
bearing whatsoever on the security of State, the Court can
hold that satisfaction of the president or the Governor which
is required for passing such an order has been vitiated by
wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations.
THANK YOU!