The Hindu : National : Centre agrees to make public Buta Singh reports

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 31, 2005

National

National

Centre agrees to make public Buta Singh reports

Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it had no objection to make public the reports of Bihar Governor Buta Singh based on which the President dissolved the Assembly on May 23.

Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam told a Bench, comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice G.P. Mathur and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, hearing the pleas of former MLAs challenging the dissolution of the House that the Centre was ready to make available to parties the copies of the Governor's reports.

Mr. Subramaniam, while replying to submissions made by senior advocate Soli Sorabjee that the reports should be made public, said the two reports of the Governor dated April 27 and May 21 would be filed along with the counter affidavit to be filed in the petitions challenging the dissolution. He said the counter would be filed by September 2.

Earlier appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sorabjee contended that the reports were subject to judicial review as he was stated to have expressed apprehension of horse-trading in the Assembly.

Mr. Subramaniam told the Bench that the Government was waiving privilege over the two reports of the Governor in this case and would furnish them to the petitioners. The Bench recorded his statement and disposed of the application. It made it clear that waiver of privilege was confined to this case alone and would not be cited as a precedent later. On the question of making the Governor a party to the proceedings, Mr. Sorabjee argued that he could be impleaded and the court could issue a notice to him if allegations of mala fide were raised. He said there was an obligation cast on the part of the Governor to answer the allegations.

Constitutional immunity

However, Attorney General Milon Banerjee said the Governor could not be made a party as Article 361 of the Constitution provided immunity to him. He said if the petitioners proved through documents the legal mala fide alleged against the Governor, then at a later stage the court could issue notice to the constitutional functionary. Mr. Subramaniam, however, said that a Governor could not be made a party in such proceedings, as he was not answerable to the court.

Advocate Viplav Sharma said that in this case the Governor had not performed his constitutional functions by failing to administer the oath of office to the elected Members. He said the Election Commission notified the constitution of the Assembly on March 4 and on March 6, the Governor recommended President's rule. Thus he had failed in his duty, the petitioner said, and sought a direction to the Governor to administer the oath. Further arguments would continue tomorrow.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National