Under XIV , Article 310 of Indian Constitution defines the terms of service for government employees in India. It enshrines the doctrine of pleasure, a concept borrowed from British law. According to this, public servants hold office "at the pleasure" of the President (for Union posts) or the Governor (for State posts). This means they can be removed from service without fixed tenure or mandatory explanation .

However, in India this power is not unchecked. The Constitution also provides protections under Article 311 ensuring that employees cannot be removed arbitrarily. The courts have further developed this balance between authority and fairness . Thus, Article 310 of Constitution of India plays a vital role in maintaining both government discipline and legal safeguards .

Understanding the significance of Article 310 of Indian Constitution is important, especially for public servants, legal professionals and students. It shows how constitutional law shapes government employment with accountability and structure. Explore in-depth analysis of other Constitutional Articles.

Article 310 of Indian Constitution

Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State

(1) Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service 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.

(2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor of the State, any contract under which a person, not being a member of a defence service or of an all-India service or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under this Constitution to hold such a post may, if the President or the Governor, as the case may be, deems it necessary in order to secure the services of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to him of compensation, if before the expiration of an agreed period that post is abolished or he is, for reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download PDF on Article 310 of Indian Constitution

Article 310 of the Indian Constitution defines that individuals serving the Union or a State—including those in the defense services, all-India services, and civil services—hold office during the pleasure of the President or Governor, respectively. This is why Article 310 is known as the doctrine of pleasure article.

The term means that the President (for Union posts) and the Governor (for State posts) can remove public servants without providing a reason or following set procedures. This includes members of the IAS, IPS, IFS, and other central or state civil services.

Article 310(1) of Indian Constitution establishes this general rule. Meanwhile, Article 310(2) of Indian Constitution creates an important exception. If a civil post is filled by someone on a contract basis, and the post is abolished or the individual is removed without misconduct, compensation must be provided.

It is crucial to understand that even though Art 310 of Indian Constitution gives broad powers, they cannot be used in violation of other constitutional provisions. Article 310 and 311 of Indian Constitution work together to ensure that no civil servant is treated unjustly. Arbitrary dismissals go against the constitutional promise of fairness and reasonableness.

Article 310 of Indian Constitution Landmark Cases 

Some of the landmark cases relating to Article 310 of Constitution of India are explained below, they are -

1. State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (1961)

The Court held that the doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 is valid but not absolute . The employee’s dismissal must still follow due process under Article 311 which protects against arbitrary action .

2. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)

In this case, the Supreme Court allowed dismissal without a hearing under specific conditions, but reaffirmed that Article 310 powers must align with constitutional fairness. It linked the doctrine of pleasure with natural justice.

3. Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1967)

The Court stated that government servants' rights are defined by service rules . Their tenure is not based solely on Art 310 making it clear that administrative discretion must follow legal frameworks .

4. K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006)

Here, the Court ruled that powers under Article 310 of Constitution of India must not be misused. Dismissals without valid cause, even under the doctrine of pleasure, can be challenged for being arbitrary.

The significance of Article 310 of Indian Constitution lies in the flexibility it gives the government to manage its employees. This flexibility is essential for ensuring accountability, discipline, and trust in public service. Without the power to remove underperforming or unfit employees, administration would become inefficient and rigid.

At the same time, Article 310 cannot be used without limits. The Indian Constitution ensures that this power is not exercised arbitrarily. Thanks to Article 311, civil servants are entitled to safeguards like the right to a hearing in most cases.

In democratic governance, efficiency and justice must go hand in hand. Article 310 of Constitution delivers that balance by empowering the executive while protecting individual rights. It distinguishes between Union and State officers and applies the doctrine equally, but always within the bounds of the Constitution.

The 310 Article is not just about administrative control; it is also a test of how constitutional values are upheld in public employment.

Article 310 of Indian Constitution Developments and Amendments 

Though no formal amendment has changed Article 310 of Constitution of India, its meaning has evolved through court decisions. In the early years, the doctrine of pleasure was seen as a wide-ranging power. But with constitutional maturity, the judiciary has reshaped it to ensure fairness.

Cases like Tulsiram Patel and Babu Ram Upadhya have clarified that while art 310 gives dismissal powers, these must respect rights guaranteed under Article 311. Together, Article 310 and 311 of Indian Constitution create a constitutional framework that balances state power with civil liberties.

Additionally, article 310 2 of Indian Constitution has gained relevance in today’s context of contract-based appointments. If the state ends such a contract prematurely (without misconduct), it must pay compensation, recognizing the importance of stability for professionals with special skills.

The doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 now operates within legal boundaries shaped by judicial review. The evolution of article 310 of Indian Constitution explanation has made it not just a legal rule, but a mechanism tested against constitutional principles.

This ensures that Art 310 of Indian Constitution is interpreted in a way that reflects justice, accountability, and administrative efficiency in the 21st century.

Conclusion

Article 310 of Indian Constitution grants the executive the power to dismiss civil servants without fixed tenure, based on the doctrine of pleasure. This power, inherited from colonial-era governance, allows the government to act swiftly in the interest of discipline and efficiency. It applies to all civil and defense services under the Union or State, making it foundational to India’s administrative framework.

But this power is not absolute. The judiciary has clarified through key cases that article 310 must always be read with Article 311, which provides important procedural safeguards. Arbitrary dismissals are unconstitutional. This ensures that even though an officer serves at the pleasure of the President or Governor, they cannot be removed unjustly.

Article 310 1 of Indian Constitution deals with regular service posts, while article 310 2 of Indian Constitution addresses contractual positions and their termination terms. The courts have ensured that both clauses respect justice and compensation.

To conclude, Article 310 of Constitution of India is not just a rule on employment—it reflects how India balances authority with fairness. The doctrine of pleasure article empowers the state but upholds constitutional dignity. It is a perfect example of Indian democracy adapting foreign ideas into a rights-based constitutional system.