Delhi’s Patiala House Court has given a big blow to lawyer Mahmood Pracha by rejecting his petition in which he had demanded to declare the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict nullified. The court has imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh on the lawyer, terming the petition as ‘frivolous’, misleading and an abuse of the judicial process.

District Judge Dharmendra Rana said in his order that the petition filed by Mahmood Pracha is not only beyond the facts but it also raises questions on the credibility of the judicial system. The court said that it appears that the petitioner did not read the Ayodhya verdict completely, otherwise such confusion would not have arisen. The court admitted that this case was filed only for the purpose of creating publicity and spreading misunderstanding.

Lawyer misinterpreted Justice Chandrachud’s speech

In the petition, Pracha had claimed that the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had said in a speech that the Ayodhya verdict was based on the solution given by Lord Shri Ram Lala. On this, the court clarified that Justice Chandrachud had only said that he had prayed to God for guidance and not received any solution from any party. The court said that the lawyer filed the case without understanding the difference between God and juristic personality i.e. a legally recognized deity.

Court expressed displeasure and gave strict warning

Making a strong comment, the court said that when the protectors become the predators, then the situation becomes worrying. The court said that such negligence cannot be expected from a senior lawyer. The court also added that it is necessary to take strict action against such baseless cases so that the time and resources of the judicial system are not wasted.

Reference to Judge Protection Act

Patiala House Court clearly said in its decision that this case is a bar under the ‘Judges Protection Act, 1985’. According to this Act, no civil or criminal action can be taken against any judge for judicial work. Upholding the order of the lower court, the court increased the amount of fine from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 6 lakh and said that it is everyone’s responsibility to maintain the dignity and sanctity of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition challenging the 2024 Maharashtra assembly election results. Earlier, on 25 June, the Bombay High Court rejected it as a petition to waste time. Now the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the order of the High Court.

What was said in the petition?
Vikhroli Mumbai assembly seat voter Chetan Chandrakant Ahire said in a petition filed in the High Court that even after 6 pm in the assembly elections in the state, about 76 lakh people cast their votes. The Election Commission is not giving their details. Ahire had demanded polling for 288 seats on 20 November 2024 and the results on 24 November 2024 as illegal.

Prakash Ambedkar, a lawyer and deprived Bahujan Aghadi leader, debated on behalf of the petitioner in the High Court. Senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni on behalf of the Election Commission and advocate Uday Varunjikar on behalf of the central government presented the side. He said that the petition is not legally valid. In an election, people who are in line before 6 o’clock, are always given a chance to vote. There is no system to keep a record of such people and make it available to anyone.

Supreme Court also refused after High Court
The petitioner also made demands like reviewing EVM-VVPAT of all seats, looking CCTV footage. Along with this, the order of voting with ballot paper was also sought in future. On 25 June, the bench of Justice GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor of Bombay High Court found the petition disqualified after a long hearing. Now the bench of Supreme Court Justice MM Sundresh and N. Kotishwar Singh has also refused to hear it.