Doctrine of Pleasure and Arbitrary Executive Action

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil v. State of Karnataka & Others (2025) set aside a notification cancelling the appointment of an Additional District Government Pleader within 24 hours of his appointment and restored his original appointment. 

What was the Background of Sunil v. State of Karnataka & Others (2025) Case? 

• The petition was filed by Advocate Sunil Sank challenging the arbitrary cancellation of his appointment as Additional District Government Pleader. 
• On 28-10-2025, the petitioner was appointed as Additional District Government Pleader at XI Additional District and Session Court, Belagavi, Sitting at Athani, District Belagavi. 
• The appointment was made under the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. 
• The petitioner assumed charge and appeared in Court following his appointment. 
• Within 24 hours, on 29-10-2025, the Department of Law issued a notification cancelling the petitioner's appointment. 
• The same notification appointed Advocate D.B Thankkannavar in place of the petitioner. 
• The petitioner contended that the cancellation was arbitrary and the appointment had been made in accordance with law. 
• The petitioner argued that the change of appointment was due to a tippani (note) from the Minister. 
• The State government defended the action by citing the distinction between appointments under Rules 26 and 28 of the Karnataka Law Officers Rules, 1977. 
• The State contended that Government Pleader appointments are at the pleasure of the State and can be withdrawn at any time. 
• The State argued that no legal right of the petitioner was violated since the appointment was at the pleasure of the State. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court noted the extraordinary nature of the case, stating "Perhaps, this is the first case in the annals of judicial review of such gross arbitrary exercise of power; in 24 hours the State changes its own orders, to its whim." 
• The Court emphasized that Article 14 is "that golden thread that is woven through the entire fabric of the Constitution of India and every bead of the State action should pass through that golden thread." 
• While acknowledging that appointments under Rule 26 are made at the pleasure of the Government, the Court held that such pleasure is not unfettered and is hemmed in by Article 14's prohibition against arbitrariness. 
• The Court clarified that the petitioner's appointment was not a nomination but an appointment under the Rules, and though it indicated a period of three years or until further orders, it would not mean the State can act arbitrarily. 
• The Court found the arbitrariness "so palpable and demonstrable" as the lawful appointment was taken away within 24 hours without administrative exigency or legal infirmity. 
• The Court declared that judicial intervention becomes "not merely appropriate, but imperative in such cases" and cannot be a mute spectator to executive freewheeling. 
• The Court set aside the notification dated 29-10-2025 appointing the 3rd respondent and restored the petitioner's appointment dated 28-10-2025. 

What is the Doctrine of Pleasure? 

About:  

• The doctrine of Pleasure means that the Crown has the power to terminate the services of a civil servant at any time they want without giving any notice of termination to the servant and thus a civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the Crown. 
• This doctrine is based on public policy.  

Constitutional Provisions in Relation to Doctrine of Pleasure: 

• As per Article 155 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the Governor of a State is appointed by the President and holds the office during the pleasure of the President. 
• Article 310 of the COI states that the civil servants (members of the Defence Services, Civil Services, All-India Services or persons holding military posts or civil posts under the Centre/State) hold office at the pleasure of the President or the Governor as the case may be. 

Restrictions on the Doctrine of Pleasure: 

• The COI lays down the following restrictions on the exercise of this doctrine:  
  • The pleasure of the President or Governor is controlled by the provisions of the Article 311 of the COI, so the field covered by Article 311 is excluded from the operation of this doctrine.  
  • The tenure of the Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Chief Election Commissioner are not dependent on the pleasure of the President or the Governor as the case may be. These posts are excluded from the operation of the doctrine of pleasure.  
  • This doctrine is subject to Fundamental Rights.  
  • Article 311 of the COI provides the following safeguards to civil servants against any arbitrary dismissal from their posts:  
    • It imposes restrictions on the removal of a civil servant.  
    • It provides for civil servants being given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing on the charges against them.  

Landmark Case Laws: 

• State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954): 
  • The Supreme Court held that in relation to the Doctrine of Pleasure, the English Common Law has not been adopted in its entirety and with all its rigorous implications. 
• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985):   
  • The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of pleasure 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.