Not many people are likely to be sorry over Mr. Prabhudas Patwari’s dismissal as governor of Tamil Nadu. He had brought the office into contempt with his antediluvian ways. He had had the temerity to insult President Sanjiva Reddy himself during the latter’s visit to Madras. It is difficult to say who is more to blame, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai, for appointing Mr. Patwari as governor or Mr. Patwari for accepting the offer. The fact remains that Mr. Patwari should never have held so august an office. As a citizen he has, of course, every right to pursue his philosophy of life, however out of tune with the spirit of modern India. But once he moved into the Raj Bhavan he was duty bound to observe the rules that go with the place and the position. He disregarded these, as it were, with a vengeance. It is also extraordinary that this self-proclaimed Gandhian should have ignored open hints by the Union home minister to resign. Indeed, not only he, but other governors appointed by the Janata government should have resigned last January when the party was routed at the polls and Mrs. Gandhi made a spectacular come-back. They must have known that they were political appointees and that they could function effectively only if they enjoyed the confidence of those in office in the New Delhi.
Article 156(1) of the Constitution provides that “the governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.” Since the President is bound by the advice of the Prime Minister, the provision in effect means that a governor shall hold office only so long as he enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister. This applies as much to those who are appointed by the government in office as those appointed by a previous government. In conformity with this interpretation of the Constitution, Mrs. Gandhi, during her previous tenure of office as Prime Minister, wanted Mr. S.S. Dhawan to resign as governor of West Bengal. He demurred and threatened to take the matter to court on the plea that having extended his “pleasure” to him the President could not withdraw it without some ground. Mr. Dhawan was mollified. He was appointed member of the Law Commission and allowed to retain his privileges as governor. The issue was, therefore, not tested in the Supreme Court. But it cannot be in dispute that political appointees should resign when the government in question goes out of office. The incoming government may ask some of these individuals to stay on. But the decision is the government’s, not of the political appointees. Strangely enough, this principle has rarely been followed in our country. That is one reason why Mr. Patwari has had to go in an unpleasant manner. It is open to question whether this unpleasantness could have been avoided. Perhaps not. Even so it is unfortunate. Episodes like this put strain on the system which is already under great pressure. Meanwhile two points are not clear. First, why has Mrs. Gandhi decided to act after being 10 months in power? Secondly, is the action to be limited to Mr. Patwari or is it a warning to others that they resign or risk dismissal?