Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

2/3/2017 ThedoctrineofpleasureandsomeGovernorstenuresTheHindu


The doctrine of pleasure and some Governors tenures

S. Mohan
JUNE 22, 2014 00:54 IST
UPDATED: JUNE 22, 2014 00:54 IST

The Central government asking for the resignation of the Governors of some States has
created a controversy.
Under Article 155 of the Constitution, the Governor of a State shall be appointed by the
President by warrant under his hand and seal. Article 156, which prescribes the Governors
term of office, says: The Governor shall hold the office during the pleasure of the

The doctrine of pleasure has its origins in English law. In England, the moral rule is that a
civil servant of the Crown holds office during the pleasure of the Crown. This means his
services can be terminated at any time by the Crown, without assigning any reason. Even if
there is a contract of employment involving the Crown, the Crown is not bound by it. In
other words, if a civil servant is dismissed from service he cannot claim arrears of salary or
damages for premature termination. The doctrine of pleasure is based on public policy.

In India, under Article 310 even civil servants hold office at the pleasure of the President or
the Governor as the case may be. That pleasure is absolute.

There are some notable exceptions in Article 310, which has adopted the English Common
Law rule that public servants hold office during the pleasure of the President or the
Governor. Article 311 imposes two qualifications on the exercise of such pleasure. Though
the two qualifications are set out in a separate Article, they clearly restrict the operation of
the rule embodied in Article 310(1). In other words, the provisions of Article 311 operate as
a proviso to Article 310(1). All existing laws have been continued by Article 372, some of
which, for example the Code of Civil Procedure, makes it possible for a public servant to
enforce his claims against the state.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, (1) AIR 1954 SC 245,
that the English Common Law has not been adopted in its entirely and with all its rigorous

In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (2) AIR 1965 SC 1416 (1437, 1438), the Supreme Court
held that the pleasure doctrine was neither a relic of the feudal age nor was it based on
any special prerogative of the British Crown but was based upon public policy. Ministers 1/6
2/3/2017 ThedoctrineofpleasureandsomeGovernorstenuresTheHindu

frame policies and the Legislature enacts laws and lays down the mode in which such
policies are to be carried out and the object the legislation seeks to achieve. From the
nature things, the task of efficiently and effectively implementing these policies and
enactments, however, rests with the civil services. The members of the public are therefore
vitally interested in the efficiency and integrity of such services.

In the case of the Governor, the position is entirely different. In 1989, when those who had
been appointed Governors by the Congress government were dismissed by the National
Front government headed by V.P. Singh, it was said the Congress government had
improperly made political appointments and that it was necessary to remove corruption
from public life. It was also said that the change of Governors had to be done in order to
give the government an opportunity to tone up the administration.

It needs to be stated that the norms laid down by the Sarkaria Commission were not
followed. The office of the Governor, who is a representative of the President in a State as
the protector of the Constitution, should normally go to persons with high status in

In this background came the Supreme Court judgment that laid down that Governors
could not be changed on the ground that there is a change of government. Nobody could
question it. However, there is one practical aspect: if the Governors were appointed solely
for the reason that they were erstwhile party men and should the new government should
bear with such situation because there is always a clash of policy and the line of thinking.
Even if the difference of opinion is subtle, should the Centre tolerate it? The answer will be
in the negative.

There is another way of looking at this. Cannot Governors on their own come forward to
tender resignation, rather than the Central government withdrawing its pleasure? Or if the
government were to say in the words of William Makepeace Thackeray: Business is first;
pleasure afterwards, why should the Governors stay on? Will not the public feel that ethics
are eroded when a Governor seems anxious to cling on?

The resultant position is: An unalterable and unquestioned law of the musical world
required that the German text of French operas sung by Swedish artists should be
translated into Italian for the clearer understanding of English-speaking audiences.
Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, Book l, Chapter 1 (1920)

It is hoped that lawmakers will alter this unpleasant situation.

(A former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, S. Mohan was acting Governor of Karnataka for
seven months.)
Printable version | Feb 3, 2017 6:55:53 PM |
page/the-doctrine-of-pleasure-and-some-governors-tenures/article6137088.ece 2/6
2/3/2017 ThedoctrineofpleasureandsomeGovernorstenuresTheHindu

The Hindu 3/6
2/3/2017 ThedoctrineofpleasureandsomeGovernorstenuresTheHindu 4/6
2/3/2017 ThedoctrineofpleasureandsomeGovernorstenuresTheHindu 5/6
2/3/2017 ThedoctrineofpleasureandsomeGovernorstenuresTheHindu 6/6