The court has the authority to expunge remarks from a judgment if they are deemed irrelevant to the decision.

ORDER :

1. I.A. No. 3 and 4.

2. The application for impleadment is dismissed.

3. 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 of Dr. Abraham.

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

5. I.A. No. 5

6. This is an application filed by the Petitioner for expunging certain remarks made in paragraph 63 of the judgment.

7. We have perused the application, which is supported by 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.

8. It would appear to us that the observations made about the 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 is "acting at the behest of some other interested parties". We 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 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.

9. With these observations, this application is disposed of.