Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
New Delhi, October 25 (IANS) Delhi’s Patiala House Court has rejected the petition challenging the Supreme Court’s historic Ayodhya verdict.
Lawyer Mahmood Pracha had filed a petition demanding that the 2019 decision of the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court be declared invalid.
In his petition, the lawyer also challenged the order of the lower court in which hearing of his civil case was refused.
Pracha claimed in her petition that former Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, was part of the five-judge bench that decided the Ayodhya dispute, but Justice Chandrachud had admitted in a speech last year that the Ayodhya verdict was in accordance with the solution provided to him by Lord Shri Ram Lalla Virajman. It is also true that Shri Ram Lala was one of the litigants in the Ayodhya dispute.
Patiala House Court District Judge Dharmendra Rana rejected Pracha’s petition, saying it was frivolous, misleading and an abuse of the judicial process.
While rejecting the petition, the court also imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh on Pracha, whereas the trial court had imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on him.
The court said that it is clear that the fine imposed by the lower court has had no effect. Therefore, the Court believes that an appropriate increase in the fine is necessary to effectively curb the tendency of those filing such cases with a frivolous mindset.
In the English translation of former Chief Justice Chandrachud’s speech included in the court order, Justice Chandrachud did not mention Ram Lala. He said that he has prayed to God for the resolution of the Ayodhya case.
Advocate Mahmood Pracha had also made Lord Ramlala Virajman a party in his case. The name of then Chief Justice Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud was also included in the petition as the next friend of Ram Lalla Virajman.
In fact, the lower court had rejected Pracha’s petition in April 2025 and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
Pracha challenged the October 18 decision of the lower court 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 in spiritual spirit, and not indicative of bias or outside influence.
The court said that the Appellant Pracha failed to understand the subtle difference between the Supreme God and the legal personality representing the plaintiff in the court. It seems that he has a misconception about religion and law. It appears that the Appellant did not read the Ayodhya judgment carefully. Otherwise such confusion would not have arisen.
Justice Rana also said that seeking guidance from God on the basis of personal faith cannot in any way be considered fraud or manipulation of the judicial process.
The court also found that Pracha’s plea was barred by the Judges Protection Act, 1985. It prohibits any civil or criminal proceedings against judges in the course of their judicial duties. Pracha mistakenly included former CJI Chandrachud as a close friend of Lord Shri Ram Lalla Virajman, but left out other essential aspects of the original Ayodhya case.
In his conclusion, Justice Rana expressed concern that there is a growing trend to target public officials after retirement. As a result, the judiciary and the legal community associated with it need to remain vigilant against such propaganda and malicious attacks. The situation becomes even more tragic when the protector becomes the eater. Here too, the Appellant is an experienced lawyer, but he chose to support the wrong party. Instead of participating in the solution, they chose to escalate the problem. The Appellant not only filed a false and frivolous suit but also filed an absolutely frivolous and frivolous appeal.
The district court upheld the lower court’s order and dismissed Pracha’s appeal. The fine imposed on him was increased from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh.
–IANS
UK