Advocate Mehmood Pracha’s plea seeking to nullify the 2019 Ayodhya judgment has been dismissed by Delhi’s District Court. The court called the case “frivolous” and imposed costs of Rs 6 lakh.
New Delhi: A District Court in Delhi has recently rejected a plea filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha, who sought to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment as null and void. Pracha had approached the court after his civil suit challenging the landmark judgment was dismissed earlier.
In addition to dismissing his plea, the court enhanced the costs imposed on him, raising the fine from Rs 1 lakh, earlier ordered by the trial court, to Rs 6 lakh.
Pracha had argued that former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who was one of the five judges on the Supreme Court bench that delivered the Ayodhya verdict, in a speech last year had admitted that the judgment was delivered according to a
“solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan,”
the deity who was one of the plaintiffs in the Ayodhya dispute.
However, District Judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Courts observed that Pracha’s case was
“frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the judicial process.”
The Court added,
“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 judgment also clarified that, in his speech, Justice Chandrachud had not referred to Ram Lalla but had 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 Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya case was null and void. He also requested a direction for a “fresh adjudication” of the matter.
In his suit, he had named Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan as a defendant through former CJI DY Chandrachud as his next friend.
The trial court had dismissed the plea in April 2025, imposing costs of Rs 1 lakh for abuse of process, following which Pracha challenged the order before the District Court.
In its October 18 judgment, District Judge Rana reproduced excerpts from both the Ayodhya verdict and the former CJI’s speech.
The court concluded that Chandrachud’s reference to “praying before God” was a personal spiritual reflection, and did not amount to any admission of bias or external interference.
The court added,
“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 further emphasized that seeking divine guidance as part of one’s personal faith cannot be treated as “fraud” under law.
The judgment stated,
“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 also highlighted that Pracha’s suit was barred by the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which protects judges from civil or criminal proceedings for actions performed in the course of their judicial duties.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that Pracha had incorrectly impleaded former CJI Chandrachud as the “next friend” of the deity, while failing to name other necessary parties involved in the Ayodhya litigation.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court backs Lulu Mall’s right to charge parking fees; appeal dismissed
In conclusion, Judge Rana expressed concern over the growing trend of targeting public officials after retirement and urged the judiciary and the Bar to act as sentinels against such “malicious and malefic assaults.”
This judgment reinforces the finality of the Supreme Court’s landmark Ayodhya verdict and sends a strong message against frivolous litigation aimed at challenging judicial authority, while clarifying that personal faith or spiritual reflections by judges do not compromise judicial impartiality.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Ram Temple
