Back
Faces Property Attachment After Delhi Court Upholds ₹6 Lakh Fine for Ayodhya Plea
In a stern move to enforce court-imposed sanctions for , the in Delhi has issued warrants for the attachment of movable properties belonging to advocate . The order, passed by Judge Medha Arya on , comes after Pracha failed to pay a cumulative fine of ₹6 lakh imposed on him for filing a suit seeking to declare the ’s Ayodhya judgment . The fine, originally set at ₹1 lakh by the trial court and enhanced to ₹6 lakh by the appellate court, is payable to the , which filed the now before the court.
The case highlights the judiciary’s increasing intolerance of , particularly when such actions target binding precedents and drag high constitutional authorities into baseless litigation.
The Frivolous Challenge
’s legal odyssey began when he filed a civil suit before a , arguing that the ’s verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute—a landmark judgment that settled a century-old communal title conflict—should be declared . The foundation of his claim was a public speech delivered by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud in , during which the judge reportedly stated that he had prayed for divine guidance and that the solution to the case was provided by ‘Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman’ (the deity who was also a party to the original suit).
Pracha contended that this statement amounted to an admission of extra-judicial influence or bias, thereby vitiating the entire judgment. He further sought to implead former CJI Chandrachud as the “” of the deity—a move the court later found to be procedurally improper and legally untenable.
Court’s Stance: Abuse of Process and Deterrence
The trial court, presided over by Judge Dharmender Rana, wasted no time in dismissing the suit. In a strongly worded order, it described the plea as “.” The court observed that Justice Chandrachud’s remarks reflected a personal spiritual experience, not a disclosure of judicial bias or external influence. It noted that the former CJI’s speech referenced praying to God for guidance, but did not indicate that Ram Lalla had provided a specific solution to the case.
Crucially, the trial court invoked the , which bars legal proceedings against judges for acts performed in the discharge of their judicial duties. The court held that even if Chandrachud’s words could be interpreted otherwise, they could not be treated as evidence of fraud, collusion, or bias sufficient to invalidate a unanimous five-judge bench decision.
On appeal, the not only upheld the dismissal but also imposed an additional ₹5 lakh fine, bringing the total penalty to ₹6 lakh. The appellate court further noted that Pracha had improperly impleaded a former Chief Justice as a party to the suit and had failed to include other connected to the original Ayodhya litigation.
Execution Proceedings: No Escape from Penalty
Despite the clear orders, Pracha did not pay the fine. The NDLSA then moved an before the . Judge Medha Arya, after noting that Pracha had been given multiple opportunities to file objections but had failed to do so, directed the issuance of for his movable assets up to the .
The court order explicitly authorised the bailiff to “break open locks, if necessary,” underscoring the urgency with which the judiciary views non-compliance with . The matter is next scheduled for hearing on , when the court will review the progress of the attachment.
This development serves as a stark reminder that courts are not merely passive adjudicators; they have robust mechanisms to enforce their own penal orders, including through attachment and even arrest in extreme cases.
Legal Ramifications: Chilling
From a legal perspective, the case reinforces several important principles.
First, it affirms that the remains a formidable shield against targeting judges. Any attempt to litigate based on a judge’s off-the-bench personal remark—especially one about faith—will be met with swift dismissal and sanctions.
Second, the enhanced fine from ₹1 lakh to ₹6 lakh signals that appellate courts will not hesitate to escalate penalties to deter repeat or particularly egregious abuses. Such are intended to disincentivise litigants from weaponising the judicial process to reopen settled issues under the guise of novel arguments.
Third, the execution proceedings highlight that are not symbolic. The NDLSA, as the beneficiary of the fine, took proactive steps to recover the amount, and the court backed it with . This sets a precedent for legal services authorities across India to enforce in cases.
Impact on Legal Practice: A Caution for Advocates
For the legal profession, this case is a cautionary tale. Advocates owe a duty not only to their clients but also to the court. Filing suits that lack any legal foundation—especially those that attack final judgments of the highest court—exposes both the litigant and the counsel to serious consequences. While the fine in this instance was imposed on Pracha personally (as the plaintiff), courts have previously directed costs against lawyers who promote frivolous claims.
Moreover, the of a former Chief Justice as a party is a procedural misstep that courts view dimly. It wastes judicial time and imposes unnecessary burdens on senior members of the judiciary. The case underscores the need for lawyers to thoroughly verify the legal basis and jurisdictional requirements before initiating suits, particularly those that challenge binding rulings.
Conclusion
The attachment of ’s properties is the latest chapter in a saga born from an unusual attempt to revisit the Ayodhya verdict through a claim of divine interference. The message from the courts is clear: the finality of judgments must be respected, and any challenge mounted on will be met with heavy costs and enforcement. As the hearing approaches, the legal community will be watching to see whether the suffice to recover the fine—and whether other potential litigants take heed.
