Delhi court issues warrants to attach Mehmood Pracha's properties after he fails to pay fine for Ayodhya verdict challenge

A Delhi court recently issued warrants for the attachment of Advocate Mehmood Pracha's movable properties after he failed to pay the fine of ₹6 lakh imposed on him for filing a plea to declare the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment as null and void.

Judge Medha Arya of the Patiala House Court passed the order on August 14.

"No objections have been filed by the JD [Judgement Debtor (Pracha) till date, although multiple opportunities have been granted to do so. Let warrants of attachment of the movable property be issued against the JD to the tune of decreetal amount on filing of PF. Bailiff is at liberty to break open the locks, if required," the Court ordered.

The matter will be heard next on October 1.

The Court passed the order on the execution petition filed by New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDLSA). Pracha was ordered to pay the fine to the NDLSA. He had initially approached a civil court to declare the Ayodhya verdict null and void. The civil judge rejected his case and imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh for abuse of process

He then challenged the order before the district court, which imposed an additional fine of ₹5 lakh on Pracha.

In his plea, Pracha claimed that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud (one of the five judges on the Supreme Court bench who decided the case), in a speech in 2024, 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.

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). 

Rejecting his arguments,Judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Court held that Pracha’s case was “frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the judicial process.” The Court noted that CJI Chandrachud, in his speech, did not refer to Ram Lalla but said that he had prayed to God for a solution in the Ayodhya case.

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 Court further emphasised that seeking divine guidance in personal faith cannot amount to “fraud” under law. 

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.

Advocate Gorang Goyal appeared for New Delhi District Legal Services Authority.