ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that expunging the remarks made about the bonafides of the petitioner would not affect the decision in the original writ petition; accordingly, the impugned remarks are directed to be expunged.

Parties
Petitioner: Arun Kumar Agrawal; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) Under Article 32 / Order on Interlocutory Applications for Expunction and Directions
Outcome
Applications disposed of; adverse remarks against the petitioner expunged; impleadment application dismissed; application for direction disposed of with clarification.
Legal Topics
Article 32, Public Interest Litigation, Expunction of Remarks, Interlocutory Applications
Constitutional Law Article 32 Public Interest Litigation Expunction of Remarks Interlocutory Applications

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arun Kumar Agrawal

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) Under Article 32 / Order on Interlocutory Applications for Expunction and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain adverse remarks against the petitioner in the judgment should be expunged
  2. 2 Effect of such remarks on the decision in the writ petition and on the service career of Dr. Abraham

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that expunging the remarks made about the bonafides of the petitioner would not affect the decision in the original writ petition; accordingly, the impugned remarks are directed to be expunged.

Court Disposition

Applications disposed of; adverse remarks against the petitioner expunged; impleadment application dismissed; application for direction disposed of with clarification.

Orders

  • Expunge the remarks that the petitioner is "acting at the behest of some other interested parties".
  • Expunge the remarks that the petitioner may have filed the petition with "ulterior motive at the interest of some other person".