OUT OF PLEASURE, MINISTER K K TEWARY RESIGNED

Amin Khan of Rajasthan also quit

Article 164 of the Constitution of India. Other provisions as to Ministers : (1) The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.

On the day of Diwali, when the Governor of Kerala, Arif Mohammad Khan met the journalists in Raj Bhavan, he mentioned that a minister in the Rajiv Gandhi government had to resign when the then President of India had informed the Prime Minister of his displeasure on the minister. The press meeting was over 80 minutes, but none of the journalists bothered to ask the Governor, about the details of the past incident. I felt sad.

The incident happened in 1985 and the minister who had to resign was K K Tewary and the President who wrote to Rajiv Gandhi revealing his displeasure was Gyani Zail Singh. It is a known fact that Zail Singh had a running feud with Rajiv Gandhi then.

Arif Mohammad Khan, at that time, had been a colleague of Tewary in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet, as minister of state for Information and Broadcasting.

Tewary had been elected twice from the Buxar Lok Sabha constituency in 1980 and 1984, and he became Union Minister of State for Public Enterprise, in Rajiv Gandhi's 1984 cabinet. Zail Singh had written to the PM withdrawing his pleasure on Tiwary, referring to the minister's allegations of Zail Singh having extremist links. It isn't often that polemical broadsides are aimed at the August person of the President of India, or the Governor of a state, who are national symbols and supposed to be above controversy.

K K Tewary

So more than a few eyebrows went up in May 1985, when Tewary, alleged in the Lok Sabha that two Sikhs supposed to be connected with extremists overseas had been President Zail Singh's guests at Rashtrapati Bhawan in 1983.

Tewary's remarks came close on the heels of stories in sections of the media alleging that the President had links with extremists. Admittedly, the sensational stories looked like a campaign.

The most blatant accusation came from Tewary. Speaking in a debate on a public hearing on the so-called "human rights" issue in Punjab in Washington, Tewari said that Didar Singh Bains and Harbhajan Singh Jogi (Khalsa), two men who he said were associated with such extremist leaders as Jagjit Singh Chauhan and Ganga Singh Dhillon, had stayed at Rashtrapati Bhawan in 1983.

Trying to establish a link thus between Rashtrapati Bhawan and these protagonists of Khalistan, Tewary thundered: "I would like to ask the (home) minister how their stay was possible."

Home Minister S.B. Chavan seemed less than enthusiastic in his reply. Taking two days to make a riposte, all he did was read out the official denial issued by Rashtrapati Bhawan saying that Bains and Jogi had not stayed there.

What made Tewary's allegation interesting was not just that it was made but that he doesn't seem to have been taken to task for speaking out of turn. Chavan's defence was so half-hearted - opposition leaders felt that the feelings he expressed were actually inspired by higher-ups.

Bains

But Tewary firmly denied later that he was acting on orders. Said he: "I have been in Parliament for six years and I have been known to speak my mind. This was an issue I felt strongly about."

The story of Bains and Jogi

Both Bains and Jogi had visited India several times and Jogi at least had been in Rashtrapati Bhawan as a visitor if not as an overnight guest, and Jogi had also met the late prime minister Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi before he became prime minister.

Jogi, or Yogi Bhajan a former customs inspector at Delhi airport, had left India in the 1960s to settle in the United States. He is credited with having converted a number of white Americans to Sikhism and becoming a wealthy man owning property including ashrams in several parts of The US.

Jogi has been accused posthumously of sexual abuse by hundreds of his female followers; an investigation called the Olive Branch Report found the allegations most likely true.

In 2019, Yogi Bhajan's former secretary Pamela Saharah Dyson published the book Premka: White Bird in a Golden Cage: My Life with Yogi Bhajan, reporting that she and other women had sexual relationships with Harbhajan Singh. In March 2020, anti-cult activist Be Scofield published an article in her magazine, The Guru reporting sexual abuse and rape of female followers and assistants including Dyson by Harbhajan Singh, based on "over a dozen original interviews."

But he was no stranger to India. According to the official records, he was in India on December 9, 1982, and stayed with his disciples in a five-star hotel in the capital. He was back in India in 1984 and sat in the VIP enclosure at the Republic Day parade.

Jogi

Three months later, when President Zail Singh visited Mexico, he dropped in on Jogi's Los Angeles ashram. Even Minister of State for Steel, Natwar Singh, who was then foreign secretary, was with him. The itinerary significantly was approved by the Government.

Didar Singh Bains, founder of Gurdwara Yuba City California was one of the wealthiest Sikhs in the US to which he migrated shortly after Independence in 1947. Known as the “Peach King” of California, he was one of the richest Sikh farmers in North America.

He arrived in the US with only $8 and went on to own over 40 pockets of land in 13 counties, including 667 acres of land near Sacramento International Airport. He became one of Northern California’s richest men, having assets worth USD 50 million. Bains worked as a labourer during his initial days in the US. He not only sponsored his own family members, but countless other people of the region to immigrate to the US since 1960.

Bains also has been an acquaintance of Zail Singh's for some time.

But Operation Bluestar changed his view on his country of origin completely. Shortly after the crack-down on extremists in the Golden Temple in June 1984, he told India Today (July 15, 1984) in the US: "My only solution now is Khalistan. Before the raid, I was not too much for it."

Bains too was reported to have visited India often though not since the army crackdown. More important, he was once considered for an honour by Mrs Gandhi's government.

Zail Singh

According to information from intelligence sources, Jogi and Bains were in different ways committed to the extremist cause. But while Jogi was known more for his flamboyance, Bains may have been more active in the separatist movement. But the way things were, it would have done nobody any good, certainly not the President, to publicly own up to a friendship with the two.

Before he became President, Zail Singh was embroiled in an unseemly battle for influence within the Congress(I) in Punjab, battling his chief rival in the party, Darbara Singh, in a manner which gave all the advantage to the extremist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

Incidents in which the rivalry between these two Congress(I) leaders allowed Bhindranwale to evade arrest and Zail Singh's presence at a religious ceremony together with Bhindranwale are now an indelible part of the Punjab story.

The pleasure doctrine

But in the present context, it will do well for the ignorant journalists to remember the story-after Tiwary "revealed," Zail Singh's connection with the "extremists", the President wrote a letter to the Prime Minister like the one Arif Mohammad Khan sent to the Chief Minister. Rajiv Gandhi consulted all the available constitutional experts, but could not rescue Tiwary. If the President/Governor loses his pleasure on a minister, there is no other way. The 'pleasure' is discretion, and it cannot be questioned.

Tewary resigned immediately, or he was asked to resign by Rajiv Gandhi. Tiwary was reinstated as minister after Zail Singh's exit in 1987.

Tewary had also openly criticised Zail Singh, following the appointment given to Congress dissidents Pranab Mukherjee and Gundu Rao by Rashtrapati Bhawan for presenting a memorandum against the Government. Rajiv Gandhi had fallen out with Pranab.

In 1990 June, Tewary earned a record when he was reprimanded in the Rajya Sabha, for his outburst against Vice-President Shankar Dayal Sharma who was also chairman of the upper House.

It was the first time a former minister has been hauled up.

Tewary's return to the limelight came after Sharma indicted Congress(I) members for their rowdy behaviour. Obviously feeling left out of the action, Tewary emerged to "defend my party". The defence took the form of an attack on the chairman, whom Tewary accused of an "utterly outrageous and totally impermissible outburst". For good measure, he added that Sharma's "hysterical rantings have not served the cause of democracy as his simulated dramatics were clearly aimed at gagging the only opposition party and its members".

The statement led to an uproar in the House and finally, it was decided to reprimand Tewary. After his attempts to evade the order through the Supreme Court failed, Tewary eventually turned up on June 1.

He was literally put in the dock while Heptulla read out the reprimand which, apart from censuring Tewary, stated that a more severe penalty was not being administered in the hope that he would repent.

Now, Arif Mohammad Khan, who cited the 1985 incident has written to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, withdrawing his pleasure on the Finance Minister K N Balagopal, and according to precedence, Balagopal's days are numbered.

In February 2011, Rajasthan Minister of State for Rural Development and Waqf, Amin Khan had to quit after a row over disparaging remarks he made about President Pratibha Patil. He was asked to quit by Chief Minister Asok Gehlot.

"The president cooked food and washed dishes in Indira Gandhi's kitchen in 1977," Khan told a gathering of Congress workers. "She never asked for anything in return, so she was finally rewarded by the Congress with the president's post," he said.

Amin was asked to quit knowing the displeasure of the President-it could be settled without Ms Patil writing a letter because Amin belonged to the Congress, of which she was a member.

In 2015, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Ram Naik withdrew his pleasure on minister Azam Khan, for abusing him in the assembly during the discussion of the Nagar Nigam bill, and wrote a letter to the Speaker. When the minister did not resign, a quo warranto petition was filed by a person in the Allahabad High Court. The Governor had summoned the video footage of the discussion and had found that indeed Khan's remarks were defamatory.

The UP government took the position that remarks made by MLAs inside the assembly are not subject to judicial review. The Speaker has the authority to take action and the remarks removed from assembly records will not be available to the public. There are court orders which said that it is not the judiciary but the administrative leadership that has the right to take action. The government also pleaded that the withdrawal of the pleasure must be by consensus on the advice of the Chief Minister. 

Ajoy Mukherjee

The court pointed out that the Governor has not issued a notification withdrawing the minister. The note containing the displeasure of the Governor should not be subjected to judicial review. The court said that the Governor, Speaker and the CM should solve the problem.

The current situation in Kerala is not similar to the Azam Khan case, since the incident doesn't pertain to hate speech inside the assembly. The Governor has raised a case of sedition, on remarks made in public. More than that, the Governor referred to the sedition cases against former minister Saji Cherian and K T Jaleel, MLA. It means the Governor sees a pattern in Balagopal's seditious speech.

It is well known that the Communist Party of India had not recognised the freedom that India attained in 1947; they termed it bourgeois freedom and recognised the country's freedom only during the 1956 Palakkad Congress session.

There are several instances in which courts have upheld the doctrine of pleasure. In November 1967, the Governor of West Bengal, Mahabir Prasad Sharma dismissed Chief Minister Ajoy Mukherjee and appointed Prafulla Chandra Ghosh. When a case was filed in the High Court, Justice B Mitra ruled:

"Article 164(1) provides that the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. This exercise of pleasure by the Governor, however, has not been fettered by any condition or restriction. The withdrawal of the pleasure by the Governor is, in my view, a matter entirely at the discretion of the Governor. The provision in clause (2) of Article 164, that the Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State, does not in any manner fetter or restrict the Governor's power to withdraw the pleasure during which the Ministers hold office. Collective responsibility contemplated by Cl. (2) of Article 164 means that the Council of Ministers is answerable to the Legislative Assembly of the State. It follows that a majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly can at any time express its want of confidence in the Council of Ministers. But that is as far as the Legislative Assembly can go. The Constitution has not conferred any power on the Legislative Assembly of the State to dismiss or remove from office the Council of Ministers. If a Council of Ministers refuses to vacate the office of Ministers, even after a motion of no-confidence has been passed against it in the Legislative Assembly of the State, it will then be for the Governor to withdraw the pleasure during which the Council of Ministers hold office. The power to appoint the Chief Minister, and the Council of Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the power to remove the Ministers from office, by withdrawing the pleasure contemplated by Article 164(1) have been conferred upon the Governor of the State exclusively".

This ruling upholds the Governor's power to withdraw his pleasure.

© Ramachandran