CURRENT AFFAIRS | 1 JUNE 2026
In a constitutionally significant ruling delivered on 31 May 2026, a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar held that the President and the Governor are constitutionally empowered to terminate the services of government employees under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution without holding a departmental inquiry, where it is satisfied that doing so is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State. The Bench overturned a single-judge order that had reinstated former police constable Ghulam Mohammad Tantray, who was dismissed in 2004 for alleged anti-national activities under the Ranbir Penal Code, the Arms Act and the UAPA.
Since 2021, the J&K Lieutenant Governor’s administration has invoked this provision to dismiss 91 government employees citing security of the State. The Bench observed that “security of the State has a very high threshold” and covers activities threatening sovereignty, integrity, militant links, espionage and grave anti-national conduct. For CLAT 2027 aspirants, this ruling is a textbook revision of the doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 and the safeguards plus exceptions under Article 311.
Constitutional Framework
- Article 310 — Doctrine of pleasure: civil servants hold office during pleasure of the President (Union) or Governor (State).
- Article 311(1) — No dismissal/removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
- Article 311(2) — Mandatory departmental inquiry with reasonable opportunity to be heard before dismissal/removal/reduction in rank.
- Provisos to 311(2) — inquiry not required when:
- (a) dismissal follows conviction on a criminal charge,
- (b) the authority records in writing that holding an inquiry is reasonably impracticable,
- (c) the President/Governor is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry.
CLAT Legal Aptitude Angle
Article 311 is among the most frequently tested civil-services protection clauses. Expect CLAT 2027 to frame this as a principle-fact question — for example: “A constable was dismissed without inquiry on grounds of suspected militant links; the Governor recorded satisfaction that an inquiry was inexpedient. Which constitutional provision protects the dismissal?”
The correct answer hinges on identifying Article 311(2) proviso (c), the subjective satisfaction of the President or Governor, and the limited scope of judicial review (only on grounds of mala fides or non-existence of material).
Key Facts at a Glance
| Bench | Justices Sanjeev Kumar & Sanjay Parihar (Division Bench) |
| Case | Ghulam Mohammad Tantray (ex-Constable, 2004 dismissal) |
| Provision invoked | Article 311(2) proviso (c) |
| Underlying doctrine | Doctrine of Pleasure — Article 310 |
| Dismissals since 2021 | 91 govt employees under Article 311(2)(c) |
| Standard | “Security of State — very high threshold; sovereignty, integrity, militant links, espionage” |
Mnemonic & Key Cases
Mnemonic — “PGE-Security-NoInquiry”: President/Governor/Either satisfied → Security of State ground → No Inquiry needed.
- Union of India v Tulsiram Patel (1985) — landmark constitution-bench ruling on scope of Article 311(2) provisos.
- A.K. Kaul v Union of India (1995) — judicial review of subjective satisfaction limited to mala fides.
- Sayed Bhar v UT of J&K (2024) — earlier J&K HC view on 311(2)(c) procedure.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
