Delhi court slaps ₹6 lakh costs on Mehmood Pracha for plea to set aside Ayodhya verdict over CJI Chandrachud's comments

A District Court in Delhi recently dismissed a plea filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha seeking to declare Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment as null and void..Pracha's plea before the District Court challenged a civil court order rejecting his suit over the issue. Pracha claimed that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud (one of the five judges on Supreme Court bench who decided the case), in a speech last year had admitted that the Ayodhya judgment was delivered in accordance with a “solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan”, the deity who was one of the plaintiffs in the Ayodhya title dispute.District Judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Courts held that Pracha’s case was “frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the judicial process.”The Court also imposed costs of ₹6 lakh on Pracha, enhancing the ₹1 lakh fine the trial court had ordered him to pay. “Evidently, the cost imposed by the Ld. trial court has failed to achieve the intended goal of deterrent effect. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in order to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation the cost amount needs to be suitably enhanced to fetch the desired results,” the Court said. Notably, in his speech, the English translation of which was made available in the Court order, Justice Chandrachud did not refer to Ram Lalla but said that he had prayed to God for a solution in the Ayodhya case..Pracha, a practicing lawyer, had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the 2019 Ayodhya judgment was null and void. He asked for a direction for a “fresh adjudication” of the matter. He also made Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan a defendant to his suit through next friend Dhananjay Chandrachud (the former CJI). The trial court dismissed his plea in April 2025, imposing costs of ₹1 lakh for abuse of process. Pracha challenged the order before the District Court..In the judgment delivered on October 18, District Judge Rana reproduced excerpts from both the Ayodhya judgment and the former CJI’s speech, concluding that Chandrachud’s reference to “praying before God” was a spiritual reflection, not an admission of bias or external interference.“The appellant [Pracha] seems to have missed the subtle distinction between the ‘Supreme God’ and the ‘Juristic Personality’ litigating before the Court, probably on account of misunderstanding the law and religion. It appears that the appellant has not cared to go through the Ayodhya case judgment, otherwise such a confusion would not have arisen in his mind,” the Court noted.Judge Rana further emphasized that seeking divine guidance in personal faith cannot amount to “fraud” under law. “Therefore, seeking guidance from the almighty cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain an unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion," the Court said. It also held that Pracha’s suit was barred by the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which prohibits civil or criminal proceedings against judges for actions performed in the course of their judicial duties. Moreover, Pracha had wrongly impleaded former CJI Chandrachud as the “next friend” of the deity despite not naming other necessary parties from the Ayodhya litigation, the Court added.In conclusion, Judge Rana lamented the growing tendency to target public functionaries after their retirement and urged both the judiciary and the Bar to act as sentinels against such “malicious and malefic assaults.”“The situation becomes distressful when the protector himself turns predator. In the case at hand, the appellant, despite being a fairly senior counsel, has opted to choose the wrong color of jersey. Instead of participating in the solution, he has opted to augment the problem. The appellant herein has not only filed a false and frivolous suit but has even filed an absolutely luxurious and frivolous appeal,” the Court observed. .Therefore, it upheld the trial court order rejecting Pracha’s suit and enhanced the fine imposed on him to ₹6 lakh. .[Read Judgment]