A Delhi District Court has dismissed a plea by advocate Mehmood Pracha seeking to nullify the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 Ayodhya judgment, labelling it as “frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the judicial process.” The court not only rejected the appeal but also slapped Pracha with enhanced costs of ₹6 lakh, up from the ₹1 lakh imposed by the trial court earlier this year. The judgement was issued on 18th October, responding to Pracha’s plea challenging a civil order rejecting his suit over the issue.
Pracha’s suit against the Ayodhya judgement was based on comments made by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud in a speech last year, where he mentioned praying to God for guidance in resolving the contentious Ayodhya case. Pracha interpreted this as an admission that the judgment was influenced by the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan, one of the plaintiffs in the original dispute, and sought a declaration that the verdict was void, along with a call for fresh adjudication.
District Judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Courts clarified that Chandrachud’s reference was a personal spiritual reflection, not evidence of bias or external interference. The judge noted that the former CJI did not specifically mention Ram Lalla but spoke generally about seeking divine help. “The appellant 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,” the court observed.
The court further ruled that seeking guidance from the almighty does not constitute fraud under the law, stating, “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.”
Additionally, the court noted that Pracha’s suit was deemed barred by the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which shields judges from civil or criminal actions related to their judicial duties.
In his original civil suit before the trial court, advocate Mehmood Pracha had impleaded the deity through Chandrachud as its “next friend,” but failed to include other parties from the Ayodhya litigation. The trial court dismissed it in April 2025 with ₹1 lakh in costs, prompting Pracha’s appeal to the District Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the court imposed an additional penalty of ₹5 lakh on Pracha, making it total ₹6 lakh. He has been ordered to deposit the amount within 30 days. In the judgement, Judge Rana emphasized the need for deterrence against “frivolous and luxurious litigation,” saying the initial fine had not achieved its goal. He criticized Pracha, a senior counsel, for turning “predator” instead of protector, and urged the judiciary and legal bar to guard against such assaults on retired public functionaries.
