Delhi Court Imposes ₹6 Lakh Cost On Lawyer Mehmood Pracha For Plea To Set Aside Ayodhya Verdict Citing Ex-CJI Chandrachud's Remarks
A Delhi Court has imposed Rs. 6 lakh costs on lawyer Mehmood Pracha for filing a plea seeking setting aside of the 2019 Ayodhya verdict citing certain remarks made by former CJI, Justice DY Chandrachud, in a speech.
Calling it frivolous and luxurious litigation, District Judge Dharmender Rana of Patiala House Courts upheld the costs of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on Pracha by a lower court and further imposed additional Rs. 5 lakh costs on him.
The costs of Rs. 6 lakh is to be deposited to the DLSA within 30 days.
“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 judge said.
Pracha had filed a civil suit seeking setting aside of the Ayodhya verdict as null and void. He also sought fresh adjudication of the civil appeals filed before the Supreme Court. He suit was dismissed by the trial court in April, along with costs of Rs. 1 lakh.
While Pracha did not challenged the judgment on merits, he contended that the verdict delivered was vitiated on the ground of fraud as Justice Chandrachud, being one of the authors of the judgment, himself admitted that the litigant before him “showed him the way.” This was apparently in reference to a comment by ex-CJI Chandrachud that he had prayed to the deity to solve the Ayodhya case.
Pracha claimed that such a situation tantamount to “unlawful interference”, and thus the judgment stood vitiated on the grounds of fraud.
Pracha argued that once the 'probable author' has himself proclaimed that he was in active communication with one of the litigants(the deity) and the judgment was pronounced in terms of the solution provided by the litigant himself, the verdict stood vitiated on the ground of fraud.
He also submitted that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action as an aggrieved person is competent to assail the judgment on the grounds of fraud.
Dismissing the appeal, Judge Rana referred to the speech delivered by Justice Chandrachud and said that the latter was praying to the Supreme Being to help him find out a way whereas the litigant before him 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. 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 said.
It added that “seeking guidance from the almighty” cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain an unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion.
“Thus, taking the averments of the appellant on its face value, there is no scope for arguing that the plaint discloses any cause of action. Therefore, no fault can be ascribed to the approach of the Ld. Trial Court in dismissing the suit of the appellant for want of cause of action,” the Court said.
Further, the judge refused to implead Justice Chandrachud as a party to the plea, including his personal appearance, as insisted by Pracha.
The Court said that impleadment of Former CJI was bad in law and that Pracha was actuated with an oblique intent.
The judge also noted that recently, a there has been a negative trend to target important public functionaries upon their demitting offices. He said that certain unscrupulous litigants nurture a misconceived notion that upon demitting office an ex-public functionary becomes vulnerable and prone to all kind of malicious and malefic assault.
“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,” the judge said.