THE DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE: CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRETION VIS-A-VIS GOVERNOR’S POWERS

Abstract

“However good a constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However, bad a constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good.”                                                                                -Dr. B.R. Ambedkar[1]

India, being a democratic nation is known worldwide for the academic marvel that it possesses, the Constitution of India. It is a masterpiece not just because it was made with so much of diligence and extensive dialogue exchange; but also, because it covers each and every sphere of government and governance. Nevertheless, certain irregularities still do creep in while governing and managing nation as big as India. One such loophole, if one may say so is the applicability of the Pleasure Doctrine. It is a knowledge of common parlance that Doctrine of Pleasure is exercised by the President at the Central level while by the Governor at the State level. But the Constitution somehow misses to answer the question of revocation of the same at the State level, which has often led to inconsistencies and war of words. Doctrinal Research methodology has been used in the present research. Conclusively the research findings clearly state that parallel governance can arise if the executive and legislature and the State are not in tandem.

[1] PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1545034#:~:text=Ambedkar%2C%20which%20are%20as%20relevant,will%20prove%20to%20be%20good%E2%80%9D  (last visited Dec 25, 2022).