Supreme Court of India

ARUN KUMAR AGRAWALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2014 INSC 906
Decided: 10 January 2014
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: S S NIJJARPINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

Holding

The Court held that the remarks concerning the petitioner's bonafides are not essential to the decision and may be expunged without affecting the judgment.

Summary

In Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court considered interlocutory applications filed in a writ petition under Article 32. The petitioner sought to have certain disparaging remarks about his bonafides, made in paragraph 63 of the judgment, expunged, arguing they were irrelevant to the decision. The Court also dismissed applications for impleadment of additional parties and clarified that the remarks had no bearing on the service career of Dr. Abraham. After hearing senior counsel for both sides, the Court held that removing the remarks would not affect the outcome of the writ petition and ordered their expunction. Consequently, the applications for impleadment were dismissed, and the application for expungement was allowed, with the matter disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the observations about the petitioner's bonafides made in the judgment can be expunged without affecting the decision.
Whether the application for impleadment of additional parties should be entertained.
Whether the remarks in the judgment have any impact on the service career of Dr. Abraham.

Subjects

Public Interest LitigationExpunction of judicial remarksWrit petitionArticle 32ImpleadmentBonafidesInterlocutory applicationService career

Judgment

                     [2014] 3 S.C.R. 929


                  ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL                                 A
                                v.
                   UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                I. A. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 2013
                                In
            (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012)                  B
                     JANUARY 10, 2014

             [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
              PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
                                                                     c
     CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950:

     Art. 32 - Writ petition filed purporting to be in public
interest - Judgment - I.A. filed praying for expunction of certain
observations made in the judgment - Held: Expunging of               0
remarks about bona fides of petitioner would not affect the
decision in the writ petition - Prayer allowed - Public Interest
Litigation - Expunction of remarks.

     Art. 32 - Writ petition - Judgment - I. A. for directions -
Held: The remarks have been made only for the purpose of             E
decision of the writ petition and shall have no bearing on the
service career of the applicant - Interlocutory application -
lmpleadment.

    CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of            i::
2013.
                                     IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2012

    Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.                   G

    Mohan Parasaran, SG, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Shanti
Bhushan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Altaf Ahmed, Prashant Bhushan,
Rohit Kumar Singh, Kartik Seth, Govindjee Kamat, Devadatt
                              929                                    H
    930      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A Kamat, Suruchi Suri, Simar Suri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,
  Vikramaditya, Senthil Jagadeesan, Govind Manoharan. Gopal
  Singh, Rupesh Kumar, Vikas Malhotra, Sushma Suri, Dr. Ashok
  Dhamija, V. Mohana, Supriya Juneja, B.V. Balaram Das,
  Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra for the appearing parties.
B
       The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

          I.A. No. 3 and 4
c         The application for impleadment is dismissed.

       So far as Dr. Abraham is concerned, we find that the
  remarks have been made only for the purpose of decision of
  the Writ Petition and shall have no bearing on the service carrier
D of Dr. Abraham.

         With the above observation, the application for direction
    is disposed of.

          I.A. No.5
E
         This is an application filed by the petitioner for expunging
    certain remarks made in paragraph 63 of the judgment.

      We have perused the application, which is supported by
F an affidavit, and heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior
  counsel; Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, Mr.
  Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel and Mr. Siddharth
  Luthra, learned ASG.

       It would appear to us that the observations made about the
G bonafides of the petitioner need to be expunged. Expunging
  of such remarks, in our opinion, would not affect the decision
  in the Writ Petition and this has also been specifically accepted
  by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
  Accordingly, we expunge the remarks made that the petitioner
H
   ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL v. UNION OF INDIA &                   931
                  ORS.
is "acting at the behest of some other interested parties". We A
also expunge the remarks that the petitioner may have filed the
petition with an "ulterior motive at the interest of some other
person". Furthermore, the remarks that the petitioner may be
acting as a "surrogate for some powerful phantom lobbies shall
also be expunged". The remarks that "the petitioner had earlier B
filed writ petitions, in which identical relief had been claimed
and the same had been dismissed", shall also be expunged.
Furthermore, the remark that the petitioner is a "stool pigeon"
and acting on the directions of some business houses is also
expunged.                                                          c
       With these observations, this application is disposed of.

R.P.                                  Applications disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Public Interest Litigation"Sign in to search