Delhi Court Issues Attachment Warrants for Advocate Mehmood Pracha’s Movable Assets Over Unpaid ₹6 Lakh Fine
A Delhi court has directed the issuance of warrants to attach the movable properties of advocate Mehmood Pracha following his non-payment of a ₹6 lakh fine. The penalty was imposed after his legal suit seeking to invalidate the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict was dismissed by the judiciary as an abuse of the legal process.
What Happened
On August 14, Judge Medha Arya of the Patiala House Court ordered the attachment of Mr. Pracha’s movable assets up to the decretal sum. The ruling came during proceedings on an execution petition filed by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDLSA), the designated recipient of the fine. The court noted that Mr. Pracha had failed to submit any objections to the prior directive, despite being granted multiple opportunities. To enforce the order, the court also empowered the bailiff to break open locks if necessary. The matter has been listed for its next hearing on October 1.
The controversy stems from a suit in which Mr. Pracha sought to have the 2019 Ram Janmabhoomi judgment declared null and void. His petition cited a 2024 public address by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who was one of the five judges on the constitution bench that delivered the Ayodhya ruling. Mr. Pracha claimed that the former CJI had admitted the verdict was founded on guidance received from ‘Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman’, a plaintiff in the dispute.
The trial court rejected the lawsuit, with Judge Dharmender Rana categorising it as frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of judicial proceedings, penalising Mr. Pracha with a ₹1 lakh fine. The court observed that the former Chief Justice’s remarks merely described praying for guidance and did not state that the deity had provided a solution to the dispute. Furthermore, the court found the remarks reflected a personal spiritual experience rather than judicial bias, external pressure, or fraud, while also citing the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which safeguards judges against legal action for acts conducted in the discharge of official duties. Upon appeal, the district court upheld the dismissal, observed that Mr. Pracha had improperly made the former CJI a party as the deity’s next friend without joining essential parties, and augmented the financial penalty by an additional ₹5 lakh.
Key Highlights
- Asset Attachment: Patiala House Court issued warrants targeting the movable assets of advocate Mehmood Pracha to recover an outstanding ₹6 lakh fine.
- Enforcement Powers: The court authorised the bailiff to break open locks if required to execute the attachment.
- Petitioner’s Default: The order followed Mr. Pracha’s failure to file objections despite receiving multiple opportunities from the court.
- Fine Escalation: An initial ₹1 lakh penalty imposed by the trial court was increased by ₹5 lakh during the appeal proceedings.
- Judicial Immunity: The original dismissal highlighted statutory protections under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, and noted that prayers for divine guidance do not constitute proof of bias or fraud.
Why This Matters
The order underscores the enforcement procedures courts employ to recover penalties imposed for suits deemed an abuse of the judicial process. It also reaffirms statutory legal protections afforded to members of the judiciary under the Judges Protection Act, 1985, against litigation arising from the discharge of judicial duties.
What to Watch Next
The execution proceedings before Judge Medha Arya at the Patiala House Court are scheduled to resume on October 1, when the court is expected to review the status of the attachment warrants.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the fine imposed on Advocate Mehmood Pracha?
The fine was levied after courts dismissed his lawsuit seeking to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict null and void, finding the plea to be frivolous and an abuse of the judicial process.
Which body is entitled to receive the fine amount?
The ₹6 lakh penalty is payable to the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDLSA), which initiated the execution petition.
Why was the penalty increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹6 lakh?
The trial court originally imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty, but the district court dismissed Mr. Pracha’s appeal and added an extra ₹5 lakh penalty, noting procedural deficiencies, including the improper impleadment of the former Chief Justice.
Source: Based on reporting published by The Hindu.