The Patiala House Court of Delhi has dismissed a petition challenging the Supreme Court’s historic Ayodhya verdict.
Lawyer Mahmood Pracha had filed a petition seeking to declare the 2019 decision of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court null and void.
In his petition, the lawyer also challenged the lower court’s order refusing to hear his civil suit.
Pracha claimed in his petition that former Chief Justice of India, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was part of the five-judge bench that decided the Ayodhya dispute, but Justice Chandrachud, in a speech last year, acknowledged that the Ayodhya verdict was in accordance with the solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman. It is also true that Shri Ram Lalla was one of the litigants in the Ayodhya dispute.
District Judge Dharmendra Rana of Patiala House Court dismissed Pracha’s petition, stating that it was frivolous, fallacious, and an abuse of the judicial process.
Dismissing the petition, the court also imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh on Pracha, while the trial court had imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him.
The court stated that it is clear that the fine imposed by the lower court has failed to have any effect. Therefore, the court believes that a reasonable increase in the fine is necessary to effectively curb the tendency of those who file such cases with a frivolous mentality.
In the English translation of former Chief Justice Chandrachud’s speech, which was included in the court order, Justice Chandrachud did not mention Ram Lalla. He stated that he had prayed to God for a resolution to the Ayodhya case.
Lawyer Mahmood Pracha had also made Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajman a party in his lawsuit. The petition also included the name of then Chief Justice Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud as the next friend of Ram Lalla Virajman.
In fact, the lower court had dismissed Pracha’s petition in April 2025 and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
Pracha challenged the lower court’s decision of October 18 in the district court. District Judge Rana, citing both the Ayodhya verdict and the former Chief Justice’s speech, concluded that Justice Chandrachud’s prayer to God was a statement made out of spiritual sentiment and not a sign of bias or external influence.
The court stated that appellant Pracha failed to grasp the subtle distinction between the Supreme God and the legal personality representing the litigant in court. He appears to have a misunderstanding of religion and law. It appears the appellant did not carefully read the Ayodhya judgment. Otherwise, such a misconception would not have arisen.
Judge Rana also stated that seeking guidance from God based on personal faith cannot in any way be considered fraud or manipulation of the judicial process.
The court also found that Pracha’s petition is also barred by the Judges’ Protection Act, 1985. It prohibits any civil or criminal proceedings against judges during judicial duties. Pracha wrongly included former CJI Chandrachud as a close friend of Bhagwan Shri Ram Lalla Virajman, but excluded other essential parties to the original Ayodhya case.
In his conclusion, Justice Rana expressed concern that there is a growing trend of targeting public functionaries after retirement. Consequently, the judiciary and its associated legal community need to be vigilant against such propaganda and malicious attacks. The situation becomes even more tragic when the protector himself turns predator. Here, too, the appellant is experienced lawyer, but he chose to support the wrong side. Instead of participating in the solution, he opted to augment the problem. The appellant not only filed a false and frivolous suit but also filed an absolutely frivolous and luxurious appeal.
The District Court dismissed Pracha’s appeal, upholding the lower court’s order. The fine imposed on him was increased from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh.
