New Delhi: A Delhi District Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment, imposing total costs of Rs. 6,00,000 for frivolous litigation and warning against the negative trend of targeting public functionaries upon demitting office.
District Judge Dharmender Rana made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha challenging a trial court judgment that had dismissed his suit seeking to declare the Ayodhya judgment null and void.
The appellant, a practicing advocate, had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming that former Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, in a public address at Kaneser, Pune, admitted the Ayodhya judgment was in terms of the solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman, one of the plaintiffs in the case. The appellant argued this amounted to fraud vitiating the judgment.
The trial court dismissed the suit with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on April 25, 2025. The appellant challenged this on grounds of locus standi, cause of action, the suit being barred by law, and excessive costs beyond the Section 35(A) CPC limit of Rs. 3,000.
On locus standi, the court noted that since Regular Suit No. 12 of 1961 was a representative suit by the Sunni Central Waqf Board involving rights of Muslim community members, and the appellant claimed to be a devout Muslim, he could not be non-suited on technical grounds of locus standi.
However, on cause of action, the court examined the former CJI’s speech where he stated: “When the Ayodhya matter was brought before me, we were thinking for three months… I was practicing prayer… I sit in front of the deity, the God, I said to find out a way and if we have trust, we have such a faith that God always finds a way.”
The court observed, “Evidently, the Hon’ble Judge was praying to the Supreme Being to help him find out a way, whereas the litigant before the Hon’ble Judge in the Ayodhya case was a juristic personality distinct from the Supreme Being. 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 also extensively quoted the Ayodhya judgment clarifying that legal personality is not conferred on the Supreme Being itself, which in Hinduism is understood as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The judgment stated: “Legal personality is not conferred on the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being has no physical presence, for it is understood to be omnipresent — the very ground of being itself.”
The court observed, “Evidently, if the appellant would have cared to go through the Ayodhya judgment, he would not have missed the woods for the trees.” The distinction between a juristic personality litigating and the Omnipotent Supreme Being is absolutely clear from the Ayodhya judgment itself.
Additionally, the court observed that fraud requires deliberate deception with guilty mens rea attributable to a sentient human being, citing S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (1994 AIR 853). The court 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 noted that Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the right to practice religion equally for all citizens, including judges. Judge Rana observed, “Any religious person would agree that a connection between a devotee and the divine is deeply internal and personal, and no external interference in such internal personal matters can be countenanced.”
On the suit being barred by law, the court also held that while reliance on Article 141 in a fraud suit was misplaced, the suit was clearly barred under Order I Rule IX CPC for non-impleadment of necessary parties. The only defendant impleaded was ‘Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan Through Next Friend Shri Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud’, while the other parties in the Ayodhya case were not impleaded.
The court also noted that it specifically drew the appellant’s attention to the requirement of impleading all necessary parties and offered to delete the former CJI’s name, but the appellant insisted on his presence. The court thereafter held, “It appears that the appellant is actuated with an oblique intent.”
The court further held that impleadment of the former CJI was bad in law, citing Subroto Roy Sahara vs. UOI (2014) 8 SCC, which held that the Supreme Court cannot be called upon to explain the legitimacy of the procedure adopted while passing orders. The suit was also barred under Section 3 of the Judges Protection Act, 1985.
On costs, the court noted that while Section 35(A) CPC permits costs only up to Rs. 3,000, the three-judge bench decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370 and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash (2017) 5 SCC 496 clarified that exemplary costs are necessary to curb frivolous litigation.
The court quoted extensively from Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik: “Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth… Imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases.”
It further observed, “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 court noted a negative trend of targeting public functionaries upon demitting office, citing Naresh Sharma vs. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4254), and held that courts owe a duty to ensure a peaceful evening to persons who devoted their lives to the nation’s service.
Additionally, the court held, “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.”
The court dismissed the appeal with additional costs of Rs. 5,00,000, making total costs Rs. 6,00,000 (Rs. 1,00,000 by trial court + Rs. 5,00,000 by District Court), to be deposited with DLSA, New Delhi, within 30 days, failing which recovery action would be initiated.
Case Title: Mehmood Pracha vs. Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan
