Doctrine of pleasure: a comparative study on the position in India and United Kingdom

 

 

 

 

Reg. No.: 12019074

ROLL NUMBER: RL2001B51

COURSE CODE: LAW314

SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

CA-2

 

 

Topic - Doctrine of pleasure: a comparative study on the position in India and United Kingdom

Abstract

Britain has left a lasting impact on the Constitution, the evolution of India, and its governance, for better or worse. Among the various beliefs that arose and were taken from England was the Doctrine of Pleasure.

This idea simply means that the Crown has the right and ability to terminate a specific public servant's employment at any time, without providing the worker with any previous notice or explanation.

As such, civil servants efficiently operate at the discretion of the Crown while being at the risk of being fired at any time. It is also crucial to remember that if a civil servant leaves their position before its term expires, they will not be entitled to compensation arrears.

 

To clarify the variations between the Doctrine of Pleasure in the two common law nations, the research compares the doctrines in the United Kingdom and India in the following article. The secondary sources analysed for gathering the data for the present study include books, earlier studies, and official websites.

Introduction

The East India Company brought the English-originating doctrine of pleasure to India. India was governed by the British at the time. The Common Law is the source of this idea. This philosophy was brought to India by the British. The Latin expressions "durante bene placito" and "durante bene placito regis" are the source of its origin. It indicates that it is for the King's good pleasure and for the King's good pleasure, respectively. Since the King was seen as God's envoy, nobody could challenge the decisions they made. This theory originated with the idea of the Crown, which held that the king is an eternally perfect being.

The duration of government servants' employment under the Crown is covered under the notion of pleasure. The Privy Council defended and clarified the theory of pleasure in the 1895 case of Shenton v. Smith. In elucidating it, the Privy Council expressed the opinion that in the absence of this theory, it would be challenging to fire public employees whose continued employment would be harmful to the State. Dunn v. Queen (1896), where it was noted that public employees have no set tenure, further supported this theory. Thus, the Crown has the right to dismiss them from their position at any time.

The Doctrine of Pleasure, also known as “tenure at pleasure” is a term that is exclusive to civil servants and its origin can be traced back to the Latin maxim “durante bane placito.”

This maxim states that the contract of service with the Crown must include a clause stating that the Crown has the right to terminate the employee at any time it feels to do so.[1] The Crown has the legal authority to discharge either civil or military officers at will, with a prerequisite to such an effect being an implicit term of service contract, unless otherwise expressly stated.[2] The Doctrine is solely founded on the Crown's sovereign right, and the concept that the King is incapable of making a mistake. The Crown therefore has unilateral relationship with the servants and further, this doctrine has been recognized as a prerequisite by the Privy Council in several of its decisions.[3]

 

Doctrine of Pleasure in the UK

The doctrine of pleasure is absolute in the United Kingdom. The role of a servant is frequently held under the total authority of the Crown and is not tenured; the Crown alone decides when to fill the position. [4]

Furthermore, if a civil servant was employed under a contract, the Crown may terminate that employee without pay and retain the final say. The Crown also has the authority to remove the public servant it appointed.

This doctrine states that an employee in the UK has no right to question the Crown's actions, and it also applies to all civil servant officials who are appointed by the Crown. According to the doctrine, even if a civil servant was appointed through a contract, that contract has no legal weight and can be terminated.

 

Doctrine of Pleasure in India

Under the Constitution of India, Article 310 provides that the civil and defence servants of the Union as well as the members of the All-India Service hold that office during the pleasure of the Governor and the President.

The doctrine of pleasure is applicable on every civil servant except Supreme Court Judges, Auditor General, High Court Judges, Members of Public Service Commission and Chief Election Commission. But the doctrine of pleasure is not absolute in India as the Constitution of India has furnished certain measures to penalize the civil servants and other government office bearers, attributable to the increasing corruption cases among them. The Supreme Court, in the case of Purushottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India explained the contrasted position of the doctrine of Pleasure in India and English Common law.[5]

In the case of Shamshir Singh v. State of Punjab, The Supreme Court held that the President and the Governor of the State acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in executive authority and therefore, the dismissal of civil servants is not a personal function but a power granted by the Constitution itself.[6]

 Also, in the case of Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of pleasure is subject to the rules that are mentioned under Article 309 and conditions under Article 311 of the Constitution. In a way, Article 311 acts as a proviso to Article 310.[7]

Article 311 of the Constitution imposes limitations on the King considering the idea that he is above the law is not upheld in India. This article states that certain protections are included, such as the requirement that the civil servant be given a fair chance to be heard and the prohibition against dismissal by a lower authority. The public can have a great deal of faith in our nation's civil service department owing to these provisions, and civil servants themselves have some assurance that they can carry out their duties without worrying about being removed unfairly, discriminatorily, or without cause from their positions, as stipulated by the Doctrine of Pleasure. As a result of this, the relationship between the State and civil servants in India differs from that in the UK in that the servant has the right to sue for actions taken while using this doctrine. The issue of who is protected by Article 311 of the Constitution has been debated on numerous occasions, and the Supreme Court has determined through its judicial decisions that the exceptions to the doctrine are as follows:

Member of Civil Servant of Union

Member of Civil servant of State

An All India Servant[8]

 

Conclusion

As the interpretations and rulings of the Indian Supreme Court make evident, the authors of the Indian Constitution did not intend to preserve the original meaning of the Doctrine of Pleasure, despite their intention to include it in the document.

The position of civil servants has been improved by Article 311 of the Constitution because, in contrast to the UK, they have a tenure guarantee to carry out their legal duties without fear of dismissal. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, this article does not restrict the services provided by civil servants employed by the State or the Union of India.

Thus, it can be said that Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, which establishes the doctrine of pleasure, is not unqualified and is subject to Article 311's constitutional restrictions. When comparing the laws of the two nations, it is evident that Indian law is superior and more complex in this specific area because it permits civil servants to challenge any illegal action in a court of law and because, in the event of a contractual appointment, they cannot be terminated at the discretion of the authority they work for.

---

[1] Dunn v. R (1896) 1 Q.B.116; (1895-9) All E.R. 907. De Dohse v. R (1896) 1 Q.B.117. Shenton v. Smith (1896) A.C.299 (P.C.).

[2] Gould v. Stuart, (1896) A.C. 575 (P.C)

[3] Shenton v. Smith, 1895 AC 229 (PC)

[4] Dunn v. Queen 1896 (1) QB 116

[5] AIR 1958 SC 36

[6] AIR 1974 SC 831

[7] AIR 1971 SC 40

[8] S. L. Agrawal v. General Manager, Hindustan Steel Limited 1970 AIR 1150