Article 310

Article 310 of the Constitution of India sets out the principle governing the tenure of persons serving under the Union or the States, establishing what is commonly known as the “Doctrine of Pleasure.” This provision, while granting the President and the Governors broad authority over the tenure of government servants, is also circumscribed by constitutional safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercise of power. It forms a central component of the constitutional framework regulating public services in India, alongside Articles 309 and 311.

Constitutional Basis and Purpose

Article 310 is contained in Part XIV of the Constitution, which deals with “Services under the Union and the States.” Its primary purpose is to define the legal tenure of persons employed in the public services of India—both at the Union and State levels.
The doctrine of pleasure, inherited from the British constitutional system, originally implied that public servants held office solely at the discretion of the Crown and could be dismissed at will. However, in the Indian context, this doctrine has been modified and constitutionalised—subjected to explicit limitations to ensure that the exercise of pleasure remains consistent with principles of rule of law, natural justice, and administrative fairness.

Text and Scope of Article 310

Article 310(1) provides:
“Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of the Defence Services or of the Civil Services 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.”
Key elements of this provision include:

1. Doctrine of Pleasure: All civil and defence personnel hold office during the pleasure of the President (for Union services) or the Governor (for State services).
2. Exceptions: The tenure of such services is “subject to the provisions of the Constitution,” meaning that it must comply with safeguards provided under Article 311 and other constitutional clauses.
3. Scope: The Article applies to:
   • Members of the defence services,
   • Members of the civil services of the Union,
   • Members of the All-India Services, and
   • Persons holding civil posts under the Union or any State.

The provision thus covers almost the entire spectrum of government employment, from the armed forces to administrative services and subordinate civil posts.

The Doctrine of Pleasure: Meaning and Constitutional Modification

The Doctrine of Pleasure is a constitutional principle under which civil servants hold office at the will of the appointing authority—namely, the President or Governor. In theory, it grants the executive the power to dismiss an employee without assigning a reason or following a prescribed procedure.
However, in India, this power is not absolute. It is expressly qualified by constitutional provisions that safeguard against arbitrary or unjustified dismissals. In particular:

• Article 311 limits the pleasure doctrine by ensuring that no civil servant can be dismissed or removed except after due process and an opportunity to be heard.
• Judicial review acts as an additional check on executive arbitrariness.

Therefore, unlike in the United Kingdom—where the Crown’s pleasure is supreme—India’s version of the doctrine operates within constitutional boundaries and must adhere to principles of fairness and justice.

Exceptions and Special Provisions

Article 310(2) makes provision for contractual appointments and compensation in specific cases. It states that if:

• A person not belonging to the defence services or All-India services is appointed to a post under a contract for a specified term, and
• The post is abolished, or the contract is terminated before its expiry (other than for misconduct),

then the person is entitled to reasonable compensation as may be determined under the terms of the contract or by law made by Parliament.
This clause recognises the possibility of special appointments—especially for experts or specialists—and provides a measure of financial protection against premature termination.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Articles

Article 310 operates in close conjunction with other constitutional provisions governing public services:

• Article 309: Provides the legal framework for recruitment and service conditions, empowering the President and Governors to make service rules.
• Article 311: Lays down procedural safeguards for civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.
• Article 312: Enables the creation of All-India Services, which are subject to the pleasure of the President but also protected by statutory service rules.

Together, these articles create a balanced system where the executive retains the flexibility to manage public services efficiently while ensuring that employees are not deprived of their rights without due process.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases

The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasised that the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 must operate within constitutional constraints.

• Union of India v. S. K. Sharma (1990): The Court held that while the doctrine gives wide powers to the executive, it does not sanction arbitrary or mala fide action. The exercise of “pleasure” must conform to constitutional and statutory limitations.
• State of U.P. v. Rajendra Singh (2009): The Court reiterated that although civil servants hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, dismissal or removal must follow fair procedure and cannot be exercised whimsically.
• B. P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010): In a landmark judgment concerning the removal of Governors, the Supreme Court clarified that even positions held “at the pleasure” of the President are subject to constitutional discipline. The removal must be based on valid and relevant reasons, not political or extraneous considerations.
• Moti Ram Deka v. North East Frontier Railway (1964): The Court struck down a rule permitting termination of permanent railway employees without inquiry, holding it inconsistent with Articles 310 and 311.
• Tulsiram Patel v. Union of India (1985): The Court upheld that certain exceptions to inquiry (under Article 311(2)(b)) are permissible in cases involving security of the State, but even then, the executive must act in good faith and fairness.

These judgments collectively reinforce that Article 310 does not authorise arbitrary power; it is subject to the constitutional mandate of reasonableness and justice.

Implications and Administrative Significance

Article 310 is central to the functioning of India’s public administration, providing the constitutional foundation for managing government employment. Its implications include:

• Executive Flexibility: Enables the government to maintain administrative discipline and efficiency.
• Judicial Safeguards: Ensures that employees are protected from arbitrary or politically motivated actions.
• Administrative Accountability: The doctrine of pleasure is counterbalanced by constitutional procedures, ensuring that removal decisions are justifiable.
• Special Appointments: Allows flexibility for contractual or expert appointments, subject to compensation clauses.

Through this balance, Article 310 integrates disciplinary authority with constitutional justice, fostering a professional and impartial civil service.

Comparative and Constitutional Perspective

The Indian doctrine of pleasure, though derived from the British system, differs significantly in scope. In the United Kingdom, the Crown’s pleasure is absolute and unreviewable in courts. In contrast, India’s version is constitutionally regulated, reflecting the republican principle that all power, including executive pleasure, must be exercised under constitutional control and judicial review.
This adaptation ensures that public employment in India aligns with democratic accountability, rule of law, and protection of individual rights.

Contemporary Relevance

Article 310 continues to underpin modern administrative governance in India. While the executive retains the power to remove or terminate services in the public interest, such action is subject to scrutiny under Articles 14, 16, and 311. The provision’s relevance has increased in an era that demands both efficiency in governance and protection of civil servants from undue political influence.