Delhi Court Issues Attachment Warrants for Advocate Mehmood Pracha's Movable Assets
A Delhi court at Patiala House has issued warrants to attach the movable properties of advocate Mehmood Pracha after he failed to pay a ₹6 lakh fine imposed on him for seeking to have the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya verdict declared null and void.
Judge Medha Arya passed the order on August 14 during proceedings on an execution petition filed by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority, the body to which the fine is payable. The matter has been listed for its next hearing on October 1.
The court observed that Mr. Pracha had not filed any objections to the previous order despite being granted several opportunities. In response, the court directed that attachment warrants be issued for his movable assets up to the decretal amount and authorised the bailiff to break open locks if necessary.
In his primary suit, Mr. Pracha had argued that former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who was one of the five judges on the Supreme Court bench that decided the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case, admitted in a 2024 public speech that the judgment was based on a solution provided to him by 'Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman', a plaintiff in the dispute. Based on these remarks, the advocate requested that the Ayodhya judgment be declared null and void.
The trial court rejected the plea as an abuse of the judicial process and initially imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh. Rejecting the suit, Judge Dharmender Rana termed the petition frivolous and misconceived. The court ruled that the former Chief Justice's comments about praying to God for guidance reflected a personal spiritual experience rather than evidence of bias, fraud, or external influence. It further noted that the Judges Protection Act, 1985, prohibits legal proceedings against judges for actions taken in the discharge of their judicial duties.
On appeal, the district court upheld the dismissal and raised the penalty by an additional ₹5 lakh, taking the total fine to ₹6 lakh. The court also observed that Mr. Pracha had improperly named the former Chief Justice as the deity's next friend while failing to include necessary parties from the original Ayodhya litigation.
