Court junks ‘frivolous’ Ayodhya verdict plea | India News

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has dismissed lawyer Mehmood Pracha’s plea seeking to declare Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment “null and void”, calling it a “frivolous and luxurious” attempt to misuse the legal system. District judge Dharmender Rana not only upheld a Rs 1 lakh penalty imposed by a civil court but also added Rs 5 lakh more to “deter” similar cases.Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict had unanimously awarded the disputed site to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman for temple construction, while granting Muslims a separate five-acre plot in Ayodhya to build a mosque.Pracha had filed the suit after alleging that former CJI DY Chandrachud publicly said in Pune that the Ayodhya judgment reflected a “solution provided by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman”. He said this amounted to fraud and sought a fresh adjudication of the case.Judge Rana rejected the claim outright, observing that “seeking guidance from the almighty cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion”. Quoting Hindu and Islamic scriptures, he said “Aham Brahma Asmi” embodies unity with the divine, and even the Quran allows devotees to seek guidance from Allah.Calling Pracha’s petition an “abuse of the process of law”, the judge said the lawyer’s insistence on impleading the former CJI “soon after his retirement” revealed an “oblique intent”. He said Pracha had challenged the verdict “without even bothering to go through it” and had no standing since he was not a party to the Ayodhya case.“The already overburdened dockets of the court cannot afford the menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation,” Judge Rana said. He warned of a growing trend where “unscrupulous litigants” target public officials after they leave office, adding that courts must ensure a “peaceful and pleasant evening” to those who served the nation. “The situation becomes distressful when the protector himself turns predator,” the judge remarked. “In this case, the appellant, despite being a fairly senior counsel, has opted to choose the wrong colour of jersey. Instead of participating in the solution, he has opted to augment the problem.”Judge Rana said both courts and the legal fraternity must act as sentinels to “sieve out impurities at the entry gates themselves”, underscoring the need to “deal with such litigation with an iron hand”.