A Delhi District Court has dismissed an appeal by advocate Mehmood Pracha seeking to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict null and void, terming his plea “frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the judicial process.”

The court also enhanced the fine imposed on him from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh.

The order was passed by District Judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Courts, who upheld the trial court’s earlier decision rejecting Pracha’s civil suit challenging the Ayodhya judgment, Bar and Bench reported.

“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 court said.

Pracha had alleged that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud — one of the five judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict — had admitted in a speech last year that the judgment was rendered in accordance with a “solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan,” the deity who was a party in the case.

However, District Judge Rana noted that the English translation of the former CJI’s speech made available in court showed no such reference. Justice Chandrachud had only stated that he “prayed to God for a solution” in the Ayodhya dispute.

Pracha, a practicing lawyer, had originally filed a suit seeking a declaration that the 2019 judgment was null and void and demanded a “fresh adjudication” of the case.

He even made Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan a defendant through “next friend” Dhananjay Chandrachud (the former CJI). The trial court dismissed his plea in April 2025, imposing a Rs 1 lakh fine for abuse of process, which Pracha later challenged.

In its order dated October 18, the District Court examined excerpts from both the Ayodhya verdict and the CJI’s speech and ruled that the remarks reflected “spiritual introspection” rather than bias.

“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 observed.

Judge Rana added that seeking divine guidance could not amount to fraud under law.

“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 order stated.

The court also found Pracha’s suit barred under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which prohibits legal proceedings against judges for actions performed during the discharge of judicial duties.

It further noted that Pracha had erroneously impleaded the former CJI as the “next friend” of the deity without naming other necessary parties from the original litigation.

Expressing concern over the growing trend of targeting public figures after retirement, Judge Rana remarked, “The situation becomes distressful when the protector himself turns predator. In the case at hand, the appellant, despite being a fairly senior counsel, has opted to choose the wrong color of jersey. Instead of participating in the solution, he has opted to augment the problem. The appellant herein has not only filed a false and frivolous suit but has even filed an absolutely luxurious and frivolous appeal.”

Upholding the trial court’s order, the District Court dismissed Pracha’s appeal and increased the fine to Rs 6 lakh.