The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed its displeasure over divergent stands taken by Attorney General Milon Banerjee and Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam in a case related to the immunity enjoyed by governors.

Banerjee and Subramaniam were appearing on behalf of the government in a case on the extent of immunity enjoyed by a governor under Article 361 of the constitution.

Judge Y.K. Sabharwal, heading a five-member constitution bench hearing five questions relating to immunity of governors, told Banerjee: "I don't think this can be permitted - that one stand is taken by the attorney general and another by the additional solicitor general."

Subramaniam conceded the expression "purporting to be done by the governor in his personal capacity" under Article 361 of the constitution "does not cover acts which are mala fide or ultra vires", implying that the governor was answerable to mala fide actions.

However, Banerjee said a governor was not answerable to legal mala fides but could be answerable for personal actions.

It was in this context that the bench conveyed its dissatisfaction on the divergent stands taken by the two law officers and asked: "The attorney general is appearing for whom?"

When Banerjee said he was not appearing for the government but was appearing in his capacity as attorney general, the court said: "You are the first law officer of the government and both of you have to speak in one voice."

Besides the five questions, the bench was hearing arguments on petitions challenging the dissolution of the Bihar assembly May 23.

The other judges in the bench are K.G. Balakrishnan, B.N. Agarwal, Ashok Bhan and Arijit Pasayat.

Senior counsel Soli Sorabjee, appearing for the petitioners, maintained there could not be any absolute immunity for the governor when allegations of mala fide were raised.

Sorabjee said conferment of absolute immunity would amount to denial or in any event impair effective exercise of judicial review. Arguments in the case will continue Thursday.

The constitution bench is hearing questions related to the extent and ambit of immunity enjoyed by governors, whether the protection afforded by Article 361 would prevent the governor from being impleaded as a party even when there are allegations of malafide, and whether inaction or omission to exercise power conferred or the failure to perform a duty imposed by the constitution or fraudulent exercise of power would come under the protection of Article 361.