SC/Delhi HC Should Set Aside Mehmood Pracha’s ₹6 Lakh Asset Attachment

SC Or Delhi HC Must Set Aside Order Of Asset Attachment Of Senior SC Lawyer Mehmood Pracha Over Rs 6 Lakh Babri Masjid Litigation Costs

Summary: A Delhi court ordered attachment of movable assets of senior advocate Mehmood Pracha for recovery of ₹6 lakh in unpaid litigation costs arising from his unsuccessful attempt to challenge the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict. Pracha had instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the Supreme Court judgment in M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors was null and void and seeking fresh adjudication of the dispute. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in April 2025 and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh. On appeal, District Judge Dharmender Rana upheld the dismissal and imposed an additional ₹5 lakh, taking the aggregate costs to ₹6 lakh. The District Court characterised the litigation as frivolous, misconceived and an abuse of judicial process, observing that court time could not be squandered through frivolous litigation and that imposition of costs was justified as a deterrent. In execution proceedings initiated by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority for recovery of the costs, Judge Medha Arya reportedly noted that Pracha had been given opportunities to file objections but had not done so and consequently directed issuance of warrants for attachment of movable assets up to the decretal amount, subject to the prescribed process fee, with the bailiff authorised to break open locks if necessary. The supplied article strongly criticises the ₹6 lakh costs and consequent attachment proceedings as excessive and argues that the Supreme Court or Delhi High Court should intervene and grant relief to Pracha. This call for intervention represents the author’s opinion and not a judicial finding. The underlying District Court decision imposing the costs, however, had expressly treated the proceedings as frivolous and considered enhanced costs necessary to deter such litigation.

Author’s Disclaimer and Views on the Ayodhya Judgment

Let me first and foremost begin with a disclaimer: I neither know eminent, senior and learned lawyer Mr Mehmood Pracha nor have I ever met him but I have always seen in him the resilience to always speak boldly so many times in different news channels in what he believes is right for which I truly from the bottom of my heart applaud him! He never feels afraid to speak truth to power which has to be definitely appreciated! I have no reason to doubt that he is always in the forefront of any cause which he believes has to be espoused.

Attachment of Mehmood Pracha’s Property Over Rs 6 Lakh Litigation Costs

It was undoubtedly most bone chilling to read that a Delhi Court has ordered the attachment of movable property belonging to Mr Pracha over Rs 6 lakh in litigation costs that was imposed on him arising from his challenge to the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment which is beyond a straw of doubt most saddening to watch! In hindsight, it may be recalled that the Ayodhya dispute was decided unanimously by a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019. The top court had awarded the disputed 2.77 acres for construction of a Ram temple and directed that an alternative five-acre site be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for a mosque!

Author Questions Costs for Challenging Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Judgment

How can such an experienced, eminent and erudite senior lawyer be punished so hugely just for filing a suit challenging the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment? It is most astounding to say the very least! Let me be most upright in saying that, “I am Hindu but even I am not happy with Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment because I most strongly feel that Ram never favoured his own worship rather blessed Hanuman that I shall always accept your worship as my own worship being most impressed by his dedication and loyalty unlike Krishna. This alone explains why we see maximum Hanuman temples everywhere and not of Ram. Even in temples of other deities we see Hanuman Chalisa and Hanuman Stotra inscribed on walls and so also Hanuman idols and not of Ram which is very rarely seen! Krishna openly proclaimed himself as avatar of Vishnu but Ram never did so and led a Maryada Purshottam life standing always for justice and never wanted to see even a single person unhappy yet most unfortunately maximum bloodshed happened in his own name for his own worship which definitely cannot be ever justified!” When Ram stood for justice why Ayodhya has no Supreme Court or even Supreme Court Bench or High Court of Uttar Pradesh or even High Court Bench or to say the very least not even a single High Court Circuit Bench or Parliament or Vidhan Sabha or even Vidhan Bhavan or Capital of India or Capital of Uttar Pradesh as my very best friend Sageer Khan always advocated for Ayodhya ideally or in Mathura or Kashi and all these holy cities have none treated by Centre most proudly as “legally most worthless cities” just like Meerut among others and one fervently hope that at least now after this most shameful busting of scam involving crores of rupees unearthed in Ram temple in Ayodhya Centre will realize that it would have been much better if Ayodhya had some Supreme Court or any other big court which it has none! No such scam would have occurred if Centre had ensured that Ayodhya had Supreme Court or Supreme Court Bench or High Court or High Court Bench or to say the very least even a single Circuit Bench of High Court but it has none most shockingly!

Author’s Personal Recollection on the Ram Temple Dispute

My very best friend Sageer Khan in Mackronia locality in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh from 1993 to 1995 when I was in touch with him and we stayed in same rented building I noticed that Sageer was most deadly against creation of even a single mosque in Ayodhya, Kashi or Mathura and he was so emotional that once was on verge of fight with another Muslim over Ram temple and it was because of him that I did not step forward to fight this leading case which was an “open and shut” case! It was Ram who just for one poor person in Ayodhya did not lag behind to leave his own wife Sita in jungle who ultimately perished there itself and still most perplexingly we see that maximum bloodshed happened in his name which has to be most strongly deplored! This is all on record what I am telling!

Author’s Criticism of the Outcome in Ayodhya Case

Yet most astoundingly we saw how top senior lawyers of Supreme Court and legal luminaries like Mr Kapil Sibal, Mr Dushyant Dave and Mr Rajeev Dhavan among others lost this “open and shut” case which I also still feel truly incomprehensible indeed! Had it not been my very best friend Sageer Khan most vocal support for Ram temple I would definitely have personally fought this case from side of Muslims because I know fully well that he himself worshipped Mahadev and never favoured his own worship and blessed Hanuman that your worship I will always consider as my own worship which alone explains why we see so many temples of Hanuman all around and maximum chants of Hanuman!

How did such a most brilliant, eminent, senior and distinguished learned lawyer, former Additional Solicitor General of India and former Union Law Minister Mr Kapil Sibal aided by so many top notch lawyers and legal luminaries as mentioned above lose Ayodhya case which was an “open and shut” case? If my very best friend Sageer Khan would not have been most strongest proponent of Ram temple in Ayodhya I have not even an iota of doubt that I would definitely have single handedly won this “open and shut” case because I know the ground reality being a Hindu myself!

Execution Proceedings for Recovery of Rs 6 Lakh Costs

For the uninitiated, it must be disclosed here that Judge Medha Arya of the Patiala House Court has passed the order against Mr Pracha on August 14 in execution proceedings that was brought by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDLSA), which is entitled to recover the amount. It is worth noting that the Court laid bare that Pracha who is the judgment debtor had been given several opportunities to file objections but had not done so. It consequently directed that warrants for attachment of his movable assets be issued up to the decretal amount, subject to filing of the required process fee.

Bailiff Authorised to Break Open Locks If Necessary

Further, it must be added here that the bailiff was authorized to break open locks, if necessary, to carry out the attachment. The case is scheduled to come before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patiala House on Aug 27 and before Judge Arya on October 1. What wrong has Pracha done if he has sought a declaration in the civil suit that was filed by him seeking a declaration that the Supreme Court’s November 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya dispute was “null and void”?

Trial Court and District Court Impose Aggregate Costs of Rs 6 Lakh

By all accounts, the best possible course of action even if the court was not happy with Mr Pracha’s contention would have been to dismiss the suit but a Trial Court while dismissing the suit in April 2025 went ahead to impose a fine of Rs 1 lakh costs. But aggrieved from it, Mr Pracha preferred to appeal but what came as a bolt from the blue was that the District Judge Mr Dharmender Rana not only just subsequently upheld the dismissal but in addition also imposed an additional fine of Rs 5 lakh thus bringing the total cost to Rs 6 lakh which is definitely with due respect to the court by any stretch of imagination “most astoundingly excessive” which in my humble opinion cannot be ever justified!

Justice Sanjay Karol’s Remarks on Judicial Fallibility

It is on record that most recently none other than one of the most eminent Supreme Court Judge – Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol in his farewell address said most eloquently, elegantly and eruditely that, “Judges are not gods and must recognize the limits of their own judgment while ensuring that they see the person behind every case and not merely the petition before them.” He also said that, “We, as judges, are not gods. I only speak about myself. And we will not get every judgment right.” We have seen that so many judgments have been upturned later.

Author Seeks Intervention by Supreme Court or Delhi High Court

In conclusion, it is certainly high time that either Apex Court or Delhi High Court must immediately take suo motu cognizance of this leading case and to say the very least grant relief to learned, eminent and senior Supreme Court lawyer Mehmood Pracha at the earliest from his property being attached because he filed the suit in right earnest and I too would have done the same like him had my very best friend Sageer Khan in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh not been so deadly against any mosque in Ayodhya or Kashi or Mathura which I concede now was just not right and Muslims wherever they have mosques deserve to be always protected and treated with due respect just like temples! Only then can we actually build a tolerant and united India on road to progress, peace and prosperity! Why can’t we more tolerant and accommodative in our approach and like Ram never be happy to see even a single person unhappy yet in Ayodhya case we saw maximum bloodshed in his name which definitely cannot be ever justified or condoned under any circumstances and on any pretext whatsoever!