Judicial remarks expunction requires necessity and record support; adverse comments stayed intact, with only limited modification allowed.

Expunction of judicial remarks is an exceptional remedy available only where the remarks are unwarranted, unsupported by the record, or unnecessary to decide the controversy. The Court held that the adverse remarks complained of arose in the context of the actual dispute over physical possession of the acquired land and were therefore not liable to be expunged. The applicant could not recast the factual basis of the earlier judgment. However, the Court accepted that paragraph 145 required limited modification to balance equities and clarify the position for future conduct in public interest litigation. The prayer for expunction was rejected, but the paragraph was modified to the extent indicated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adverse remarks recorded against the applicant deserved to be expunged or modified.

Analysis: The relief of expunction of judicial remarks is an exceptional power to be exercised only where the remarks are unwarranted, unsupported by the record, or unnecessary for deciding the controversy. Applying that standard, the remarks complained of were found to have been made in the context of the actual controversy before the Court, namely the issue of physical possession of the acquired land. The applicant could not be permitted to recast the factual basis on which the earlier judgment proceeded. However, the Court accepted that the language of paragraph 145 required modification to balance the equities and to clarify the position regarding future conduct in public interest litigation.

Conclusion: The prayer for expunction was rejected, but paragraph 145 was modified to the extent indicated in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Adverse judicial remarks are not to be expunged unless they are unnecessary to the decision or unsupported by the record; where the remarks are integral to the adjudication, only limited modification may be warranted.

---