Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

This order addresses multiple interlocutory applications filed in relation to a previously decided writ petition. Specifically, IA Nos. 3 and 4 concern an application for impleadment and an application for directions related to remarks about Dr. Abraham made in the writ petition judgment. IA No. 5 is an application by the petitioner seeking expungement of certain remarks contained in paragraphs 95, 96, and 98 of the reported judgment (2014) 2 SCC 609. The court perused the application supported by an affidavit and heard counsel including Mr. Shanti Bhushan (Senior Counsel), Mr. Mohan Parasaran (Solicitor General), Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi (Senior Counsel), and Mr. Sidharth Luthra (ASG).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the application for impleadment (IA No. 3) should be allowed.
2. Whether the observations concerning Dr. Abraham in the writ petition judgment should have any bearing on his service career, or be treated as confined to the decision of the writ petition (IA No. 4).
3. Whether specific remarks in paragraphs 95, 96, and 98 of the prior judgment (2014) 2 SCC 609 impugning the petitioner’s bona fides should be expunged without affecting the decision in the writ petition (IA No. 5).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

• IA Nos. 3 and 4:
  • The application for impleadment was dismissed. No additional reasons are recorded in the order.
  • Regarding Dr. Abraham, the court clarified that the remarks in the writ petition judgment were made solely for deciding the writ petition and shall have no bearing on his service career. On that basis, the application for direction was disposed of.
• IA No. 5:
  • After perusing the application (supported by affidavit) and hearing counsel, the court concluded that the observations impugning the petitioner’s bona fides should be expunged.
  • The court expressly recorded that expunging these remarks would not affect the decision in the writ petition, a position specifically accepted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
  • Accordingly, the court ordered expungement of the following characterizations:
    • That the petitioner is “acting at the behest of some other interested parties”.
    • That the petitioner may have filed the petition with an “ulterior motive or at the instance of some other person”.
    • That the petitioner may be acting as a “surrogate for some powerful phantom lobbies”.
    • That “the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition in which identical relief had been claimed and the same had been dismissed”.
    • That the petitioner is a “stool-pigeon and acting on the directions of some business houses”.
  • The court’s analysis is confined to the necessity to expunge the remarks and the assurance that doing so would not disturb the outcome of the writ petition.

Holding and Implications

IA No. 3 (Impleadment): DISMISSED.

IA No. 4 (Directions re: Dr. Abraham): DISPOSED OF with the observation that the remarks regarding Dr. Abraham were made only for deciding the writ petition and shall have no bearing on his service career.

IA No. 5 (Expungement): REMARKS EXPUNGED; APPLICATION DISPOSED OF. The court expunged specified remarks questioning the petitioner’s bona fides and clarified that this expungement does not affect the decision in the writ petition.

Implications: The immediate consequences are the removal of the identified disparaging remarks from the earlier judgment and a clear direction that the remarks concerning Dr. Abraham will not impact his service career. The merits of the writ petition remain undisturbed. The order does not articulate broader legal principles or set a new precedent beyond the case-specific expungement and clarificatory observations.