Pranav B Prem

The District Judge-1, New Delhi, Dharmender Rana, at Patiala House Courts, has dismissed an appeal filed by Advocate Mehmood Pracha challenging the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict as “vitiated by fraud.” The Court termed the case “luxurious, frivolous, and malicious in intent,” and enhanced the cost imposed on the advocate to ₹6 lakh, directing that it be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) within thirty days.

Also Read: Government Proposes Amendments to IT Rules to Mandate Labelling of AI-Generated Content

The appeal arose from a 2025 trial court order dismissing Pracha’s suit, which sought a declaration that the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. was null and void on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. Pracha based his claim on a public address delivered by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in which the former CJI mentioned seeking divine guidance while adjudicating the Ayodhya dispute. The appellant contended that this amounted to interference by a litigant deity and vitiated the judgment. The District Judge, however, found the appeal to be “entirely misconceived.” Observing that the appellant had misunderstood the law and the distinction between divinity and juristic personality, the Court stated: “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 elaborated that the Supreme Being in Hinduism is formless, omnipresent, and beyond legal personality, while the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan was a juristic person for the purpose of litigation. Referring to the Ayodhya judgment itself, the Judge noted that the Supreme Court had made this distinction explicitly clear and that Pracha’s claim stemmed from “sheer indolence and incorrect understanding of the subject.” Judge Rana further held that seeking divine guidance in prayer does not constitute fraud in any sense of law or religion. The judgment observed: “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 noted multiple legal bars against the appellant’s claim. It observed that Pracha failed to implead the necessary parties from the Ayodhya litigation, rendering the suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC. It further held that impleading the former Chief Justice of India as the “next friend” of the deity was legally untenable and indicated an “oblique intent.” The Judge emphasized that the Judges Protection Act, 1985, expressly bars civil or criminal proceedings against judges for acts done in the discharge of judicial duties.

Condemning the misuse of judicial process, the Court remarked that time and resources of the judiciary “cannot be squandered by unscrupulous litigants,” especially by senior members of the Bar. It stated: “The menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation, which tends to impede the unsullied flow of justice, needs to be dealt with an iron hand.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Ram Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash, and Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, the Court underscored that exemplary costs must be imposed to deter frivolous and vexatious litigation. The Judge observed that the ₹1 lakh cost imposed by the trial court had “failed to achieve the intended deterrent effect,” and therefore enhanced the penalty by ₹5 lakh. Citing Justice Krishna Iyer’s remarks in I. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the Court emphasized the responsibility of advocates to prevent abuse of judicial processes, quoting: “It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation, refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients.”

Also Read: Centre Notifies Enforcement of Key Nomination Provisions in Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025, Effective November 1

The Court concluded that the appeal was not only meritless but demonstrated a “misconceived attempt to malign judicial authority.” Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed with total costs of ₹6 lakh, to be recovered by the DLSA, New Delhi. The order was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.

Cause Title: Mehmood Pracha Versus Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan

Case No: RCA DJ No. 27/2025

Coram: Sh. Dharmender Rana (DHJS)