Article 311(2)(c) — Dismissal for ‘Security of the State’

Relevance: GS Paper II — Polity (Fundamental constitutional provisions, civil services)

Source: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court judgment, 2026

1 · Context

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the President or a Governor, on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, may dismiss a government employee without a departmental inquiry if the matter concerns the ‘security of the State’. Since 2021, the J&K administration has used this power to dismiss 91 government employees.

2 · The constitutional framework

DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE · SAFEGUARDS · EXCEPTIONS

ARTICLE 310 — DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE (THE RULE) Every civil servant of the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor.

↓

ARTICLE 311 — SAFEGUARDS (RESTRICTION ON THE RULE) 311(1): no dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. 311(2): dismissal only after a formal inquiry with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

↓

THREE EXCEPTIONS TO 311(2) · INQUIRY CAN BE SKIPPED

Article 311(2)(a) Civil servant convicted on a criminal charge.

Article 311(2)(b) Inquiry is not reasonably practicable.

Article 311(2)(c) ★ President/Governor satisfied that inquiry is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

 

High threshold for 311(2)(c): reserved for terrorism, espionage, militant links, anti-national conduct. Not for ordinary misconduct.

3 · Articles 310 and 311 — quick recap

• Article 310 — Doctrine of Pleasure: civil servants serve ‘at pleasure’; the State retains the right to regulate tenure.
• Article 311 — protective restriction: applies only to civil servants of the Union and the States; mandates inquiry and a fair hearing before dismissal.
• Principle behind 311(2): the Latin maxim audi alteram partem — ‘hear the other side’.

4 · Landmark case and judicial review

• Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Article 311(2). Natural-justice principles are foundational but not absolute.
• Scope of review: the ‘satisfaction’ of the President/Governor is subjective, but a dismissal can still be struck down if shown to be mala fide (in bad faith) or based on irrelevant grounds.

5 · The J&K context

• Special Task Force (STF), 2021: set up by the J&K administration; headed by the Additional Director General of Police; recommends action under Article 311(2)(c).
• 91 employees dismissed in J&K under this provision since 2021.

VALUE BOX · QUICK REVISION Article 310: Doctrine of Pleasure (the general rule). Article 311: safeguards — 311(1) subordinate-authority bar; 311(2) right to inquiry and hearing. Three exceptions to 311(2): (a) criminal conviction · (b) inquiry not practicable · (c) security of the State. Landmark: Tulsiram Patel (1985) — upheld the second proviso to Article 311(2). Maxim behind 311(2): audi alteram partem. Judicial review: available on grounds of mala fide or wholly irrelevant grounds.

MCQ · PRELIMS PRACTICE

Consider the following statements regarding the dismissal of civil servants under the Constitution of India:

1. Article 310 establishes the Doctrine of Pleasure under which every person in the civil service of the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, respectively.
2. Under Article 311(2)(c), a civil servant may be dismissed without a departmental inquiry only when the President or the Governor is satisfied that holding such an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.
3. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), the Supreme Court struck down the second proviso to Article 311(2) as unconstitutional, holding that the principles of natural justice cannot be excluded under any circumstance.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only	(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only	(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (a) 1 and 2 only

Statement 1 — Correct. Article 310 codifies the Doctrine of Pleasure for the Union and State civil services.

Statement 2 — Correct. Article 311(2)(c) allows the inquiry to be dispensed with only when the President or Governor is satisfied it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

Statement 3 — Incorrect (the trap). The judicial holding is reversed. In Tulsiram Patel (1985), the Supreme Court upheld — not struck down — the second proviso to Article 311(2), holding that natural-justice principles are not absolute.