A Delhi court has dismissed a plea by lawyer Mehmood Pracha seeking to declare the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment "null and void," denouncing it as a "frivolous and luxurious" attempt to misuse the legal system. District Judge Dharmender Rana not only upheld a ₹1 lakh penalty imposed by a civil court in April 2025 but also added ₹5 lakh more to "deter" similar cases.

The original suit, which was rejected by the civil court, challenged the Supreme Court's verdict in the Ayodhya case. The Ayodhya verdict, delivered on November 9, 2019, by a five-judge bench, unanimously awarded the disputed 2.77 acres of land to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman for the construction of a temple. The court also directed the government to allocate a separate five-acre plot in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.

Pracha's suit alleged that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud had publicly stated in Pune that the Ayodhya judgment reflected a “solution provided by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman”. Pracha argued that this amounted to fraud and sought a fresh adjudication of the case.

Judge Rana dismissed Pracha's claim outright, stating 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, Rana emphasized that seeking divine guidance is not a fraudulent act. He noted that even the Quran allows devotees to seek guidance from Allah, and cited "Aham Brahma Asmi" to highlight unity with the divine.

The judge criticized Pracha's petition as an "abuse of the process of law," pointing out that Pracha challenged the verdict "without even bothering to go through it" and had no standing since he was not a party to the Ayodhya case. Rana also noted the "oblique intent" behind Pracha's insistence on impleading the former CJI "soon after his retirement".

Judge Rana underscored the need to prevent unnecessary litigation, stating that the already overburdened courts cannot afford the menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation. He criticized Pracha for choosing "the wrong color of jersey" and augmenting the problem instead of participating in the solution. Rana stressed that courts and the legal fraternity must act as sentinels to "sieve out impurities at the entry gates themselves" and "deal with such litigation with an iron hand".

The dismissal of Pracha's plea and the imposition of additional costs highlight the court's commitment to deterring frivolous litigation and upholding the sanctity of the judicial process. The court's decision reinforces the finality of the Ayodhya verdict and sends a strong message against the misuse of the legal system.