The law on “the Doctrine of Pleasure” and the
scope of judicial review, is no longer res integra; it has
been settled by the Apex Court and also by this Court in
various judgments. The “Doctrine of Pleasure” has its
genesis under the common law. A public servant could be
dismissed from service by the Crown at its pleasure.
However, the doctrine lost the said trait when it was
applied in India, which is a republic, wedded to the
rule of law functioning under a written Constitution.
The authoritarian doctrine, though couched in an
unfettered manner, is but subject to the rule of law.
While considering the justiciability on the exercise of
the power of Doctrine of Pleasure, there is no
adjudication of any lis. The contours of judicial review
is confined to, finding out if the exercise of the power
was “arbitrary, capricious or malafide”. There is no
requirement of any notice preceding exercise of the
power, or to assign any cause for exercise of the power.
Though there is no need to assign reasons, the need for
a valid and compelling reason, exists. In exercise of
the doctrine of pleasure, the principles of natural
justice have no application. [See Deepak v. University of
Kerala 2014 (1) KLT 520, Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 441; B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 2010 (6) SCC 331]. {Para 24}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) NO. 33664 OF 2022
DR.K.S.CHANDRASEKAR Vs THE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023
Dated: 24th day of March, 2023
Print Page