DHCBA Opposes Delhi HC Resolution On Pecuniary Jurisdiction Hike

(MENAFN- AsiaNet News)

The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has moved the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the Full Court resolution dated September 2, 2025, which empowered the Chief Justice to constitute a committee of judges to examine the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi district courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore.

The plea was mentioned before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia by DHCBA President and Senior Advocate N Hariharan. The Bench agreed to list the matter today.

DHCBA Challenges Committee's Formation and Functioning

The petition has been filed by the DHCBA and Hariharan challenging the constitution and functioning of a committee of judges formed after a Full Court meeting held on September 2, 2025. At present, the committee consists of Justices V Kameswar Rao, N W Sambre, Dinesh Mehta, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla.

The Coordination Committee of the All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi had, in May 2025, written to Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and members of the Law Commission seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore. A committee of Delhi High Court judges was subsequently constituted to consider the issue, interact with stakeholders and make recommendations.

Legal and Procedural Objections Raised

However, the DHCBA has been opposing the move, contending that any alteration of pecuniary jurisdiction falls exclusively within Parliament's legislative domain under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, and cannot be considered administratively by the High Court or any committee constituted by it.

The petition relies on the Full Bench judgment in Geetika Panwar & Delhi High Court Bar Association v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2002), which held that only Parliament is competent to alter the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. According to the plea, the Full Court allegedly took suo motu cognisance of a representation that was addressed only to the Union Law Minister and not to the High Court. It claims no reasons were recorded for entertaining the issue or constituting a committee to examine it.

Concerns Over Impact on High Court's Jurisdiction

The DHCBA has further argued that no assessment was undertaken regarding the infrastructure or capacity of district courts before considering the transfer of high-value civil and commercial disputes. The petition states that increasing the pecuniary threshold to Rs 20 crore would result in the transfer of nearly 90% of the High Court's original civil jurisdiction to subordinate courts.

Referring to data allegedly supplied by the registry, the petition states that out of 12,891 pending original side matters, nearly 11,697 cases would stand transferred if the threshold is raised to Rs 20 crore. It further claims that 99% of intellectual property suits pending before the High Court would move to district courts, which allegedly lack comparable specialised infrastructure and technical expertise. The Bar Association has also contended that the proposed move would adversely affect young lawyers practising on the original side of the High Court and dilute the institutional character of its original civil jurisdiction.

Reliefs Sought in Petition

Among other reliefs, the petition seeks directions restraining the committee from proceeding further, including from preparing or submitting any recommendation regarding the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. It also seeks a declaration that all proceedings, notices and meetings undertaken by the committee, including notices issued by the Registrar General in April 2026, are void ab initio and non-est. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

MENAFN26052026007385015968ID1111167432