Constitution of India — Art. 310 — Doctrine of Pleasure

Cases Reported in 2014 SCC VOL. 6 JULY 14, 2014 PART 3

Termination whether based on material evidence, can be examined by Court, but not sufficiency of the grounds. Furthermore, there is no need of assignment/disclosure of reasons for invocation of pleasure doctrine. Lastly, Court cannot substitute its own conclusion on the basis of materials on record. In a constitutional set-up, when office is held during the pleasure of the President, it means that the officer can be removed by the authority on whose pleasure he holds office without assigning any reason. The authority is not obliged to assign any reason or disclose any cause for the removal.

Union of India v. S.P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five × 1 =