Examine how the doctrine of 'pleasure of the President' under Article 75(2) operates in practice, given that the President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Q. Examine how the doctrine of 'pleasure of the President' under Article 75(2) operates in practice, given that the President acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 75(2) declares that Ministers "shall hold office during the pleasure of the President" [1]. In practice, however, this pleasure is not personal will but a constitutional formality channelled through the Prime Minister's advice, making ministerial tenure substantively prime-ministerial.

The formal constitutional position - Article 75(1): the President appoints the PM, and other Ministers only on the PM's advice [1]. - Article 75(2): tenure rests on "pleasure" — no stated cause, procedure or fixed term is required for a Minister to cease holding office [1]. - Article 74(1), as amended by the 42nd and 44th Amendments, makes the Council of Ministers' aid and advice binding, with only one reconsideration [1].

How the doctrine actually works - In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), the Supreme Court held that the head of State is the formal/constitutional head who exercises powers on ministerial aid and advice, except where the Constitution requires discretion [3]. - The Press Communique of 25 July 2026 illustrates this: the President, "as advised by the Prime Minister", accepted Shri Dharmendra Pradhan's resignation from the Union Council of Ministers under clause (2) of Article 75, and directed that Shri Pralhad Joshi be assigned additional charge of the Ministry of Education [2][4]. - The pleasure thus functions as the PM's principal instrument of discipline and portfolio control, while the President's Secretariat supplies a public, timestamped record of the act [2].

Limits on the pleasure - Article 75(3): collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha — the House's confidence, not the President's satisfaction, ultimately sustains a ministry [1]. - Article 75(1A) (91st Amendment) caps the Council at 15% of Lok Sabha strength, and 75(5) requires a non-member to enter Parliament within six months [1]. - Coalition arithmetic and federal-party bargaining further temper the PM's free hand.

The doctrine is therefore a formal vessel filled by prime-ministerial authority and disciplined by parliamentary confidence. Strengthening this balance — through timely public communication of ministerial changes and firmer conventions on portfolio continuity — would keep executive flexibility aligned with the accountability that Articles 74 and 75 together envisage.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 74(1), 75(1), 75(1A), 75(2), 75(3), 75(5) 2. Press Communique, President's Secretariat, PIB (PRID 2289455, 25 July 2026) — resignation accepted under Article 75(2) on the PM's advice; Education portfolio reassigned 3. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974), Supreme Court of India (Digital SCR) — head of State acts on aid and advice save in discretionary spheres 4. Union Minister Shri Pralhad Joshi takes charge of the Union Ministry of Education, PIB (PRID 2289586) — additional charge assumed alongside existing portfolios