The government Tuesday informed the Supreme Court it had no objection to making public the reports of Bihar Governor Buta Singh, based on which the president dissolved the state assembly May 23.

Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam told a bench comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and judges G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan that the government was ready to make available to parties copies of the governor's reports.

The bench was hearing pleas of former Bihar legislators challenging the dissolution of the assembly.

Subramaniam, 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 response to petitions challenging the dissolution.

He said the counter-affidavit would be filed by Sep 2.

Earlier, appearing for the petitioners, Sorabjee contended that the governor's reports were subject to judicial review as he was stated to have expressed apprehensions about horse-trading in the assembly.

Subramaniam told the bench the government was waiving privilege over the two reports 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, Sorabjee argued that the governor could be impleaded and the court could issue a notice to him about allegations of mala fide.

He said there was an obligation cast on the part of the governor to answer to the allegations.

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 him.

Advocate Viplav Sharma brought to the court's notice that in this case the governor had failed to perform 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 March 4 and the governor recommended president's rule March 6. Thus he had failed in his duty, the petitioners said, and sought a direction to the governor to administer the oath to members.

Further arguments in the case will continue Wednesday.