The Allahabad High Court fined senior lawyer Mehmood Pracha Rs 1 lakh for wasting the court’s valuable time and for his conduct during a hearing. The fine was imposed after Pracha filed a writ petition challenging the verifiability, integrity, authentication, and security of videography during the electoral process, which the court found frivolous as reported by legal news outlet Live Law.
The bench, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla, also took exception to Pracha’s behaviour during a video conference. Pracha appeared wearing his coat and band, signifying an in-person court appearance, without notifying the court beforehand. The court found this to be a breach of court decorum and instructed him to be “cautious” in the future, emphasising the need to maintain the dignity of the judicial process.
The court noted that Pracha had already filed two similar petitions with the Delhi High Court, both of which were ruled in his favour. Despite this, he approached the Allahabad High Court seeking the same relief. The petitions related to the elections for the 7-Rampur Lok Sabha Constituency in Uttar Pradesh for the year 2024.
The bench expressed its confusion over Pracha’s decision to approach the Allahabad High Court after obtaining favourable rulings from the Delhi High Court. “This court is unable to understand this shift by the petitioner when he had gone on record before the Delhi High Court stating that his prayer stands satisfied,” the bench observed. “The petitioner cannot jump or shift mid-way and choose the forum he prefers. He could have approached the Delhi High Court once again, as the cause of action remains the same and appears to be only incidental to the earlier prayers granted by the Delhi High Court.”
Additionally, the court expressed surprise at Pracha’s conduct during the hearing. Pracha, who initially appeared via video conference in his professional attire, later appeared in person without notifying the court. The court was unaware of his physical presence until after delivering its order. The bench remarked that it was inappropriate for a senior lawyer to behave in such a manner, failing to remove his band during arguments or seek leave of the court.
“This behaviour is not expected of a senior member of the bar, who is expected to be aware of the basic etiquette to be followed while addressing the bench in person,” the court stated. The bench further criticised Pracha for filing the writ petition through another advocate, Omar Zamin, while appearing in person without first withdrawing the advocate or seeking the court’s permission.
Consequently, the court dismissed Pracha’s writ petition and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh, payable to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within 30 days. The court ruled that the penalty was imposed not only due to Pracha’s inappropriate behaviour during the hearing but also because the writ petition was deemed improperly filed, wasting the court’s valuable time. The Registrar General was directed to take appropriate steps to recover the amount if the fine is not paid within the stipulated period.
Advocate Mehmood Pracha is known for his outspoken views and his involvement in various controversial issues. In 2020, an India-centric journal by a pro-ISIS media outlet featured him on its cover page. The journal, titled “Voice of Hind,” was published by Al-Qitaal Media Center and Junudul Khilafah al-Hind.
Pracha is also the founder and national convenor of “Mission Save Constitution” (MSC), an organisation that sought to hold an “All India Muslim Mahapanchayat” at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on October 29 of last year, purportedly in response to alleged atrocities against Muslims in India. However, the Delhi police rescinded the permission granted to MSC on October 16, citing the event’s communal nature, and subsequently cancelled the booking at Ramlila Maidan the next day.
Earlier this year, a video of Pracha went viral on social media, in which he criticised the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), describing it as a “conspiracy” and alleging that it was designed to benefit industrialists like Adani and Ambani at the expense of the rights of 99 per cent of Indian citisens. He claimed that the UCC was a tool used by the “RSS governments” to divert public funds to their affiliates and facilitate their escape from the country.
The recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court adds another chapter to Pracha’s controversial public life, as the legal fraternity closely watches how he will respond to the court’s directives and whether he will pay the imposed fine.
