When Jurisdiction Becomes Turf: The Fight Over ₹20-Crore Civil Cases in Delhi

A proposal to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore has triggered an intense debate within the capital’s legal fraternity, bringing into focus larger questions concerning judicial decentralisation, access to justice, pendency before the Delhi High Court and the future of the high court’s original civil jurisdiction.

The issue, which has already resulted in abstention from judicial work by both the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and district court bar bodies at different stages, traces its origins to a representation dated May 23, 2025 submitted by the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations of Delhi to the Union government and members of the Law Commission seeking enhancement of pecuniary limits.

The matter gained further momentum after a Full Court meeting of the Delhi High Court on September 2, 2025 reportedly constituted a committee of judges to examine the issue and consult stakeholders. Opposition from the DHCBA sharpened earlier this year, culminating in its January 28 resolution objecting to the proposed enhancement and later strike calls against the ongoing exercise.

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental disagreement over what Delhi’s judicial structure should look like in contemporary times.

Under the present framework, civil suits valued above ₹2 crore are instituted before the Delhi High Court while matters below that threshold are heard by district courts. The existing limit was itself introduced in 2015 when the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts was enhanced from ₹20 lakh to ₹2 crore.

Supporters of the latest proposal argue that the present threshold has become economically outdated in a city where even modest residential properties frequently exceed ₹2 crore in value.

Nagendra Kumar, spokesperson of the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations of Delhi, and chairman of the steering committee constituted on pecuniary jurisdiction, has defended the proposal as being in the interest of litigants and the general public. According to Kumar, enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction would ensure “justice at the doorstep” as litigants would be able to pursue cases near their homes at lower litigation costs and secure faster disposal before district courts.

Kumar has alleged that the DHCBA’s opposition is not driven by public interest, pointing to the association’s strike circular which stated that enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction would affect the livelihood of advocates practising before the Delhi High Court.

He has also asserted that more than 75% members of the DHCBA are simultaneously members of district court bar associations and regularly appear before district courts. According to him, “for a handful of exclusive DHCBA members who are already affluent, the interests of 1.40 crore people of Delhi cannot be compromised".

Advocate Tarun Rana, Coordinator of the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations of Delhi and Secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association, has similarly argued that the present ₹2 crore threshold no longer reflects Delhi’s economic realities.

Rana points out that while nearly 350 judicial officers are available across district courts, only a handful of benches in the Delhi High Court deal with original side matters, contributing significantly to pendency.

According to Rana, full-fledged civil trials in district courts are often completed within two to three years, whereas even completion of pleadings before the high court can consume years. He maintains that enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction would further the idea of “justice at the doorstep” while reducing costs for litigants.

The district bar’s position also draws strength from developments in other states. Supporters of enhancement frequently point out that district courts in several states already exercise significantly broader, and in some cases virtually unlimited, pecuniary jurisdiction.

For them, Delhi’s continuation as one of the few centres where large volumes of ordinary civil litigation remain concentrated before the high court reflects a structural arrangement that no longer aligns with present-day realities.

Law firm Chambers & Courtland, while supporting enhancement, similarly observed that Delhi cannot continue functioning under what it termed a “colonial-era exceptionalism” merely because chartered high courts historically exercised original side jurisdiction.

It has argued that the debate must “rise above professional turf considerations”, pointing out that Delhi today is vastly different from 2015. According to the group, compelling ordinary civil disputes into the high court solely because of outdated pecuniary thresholds imposes disproportionate financial burdens on litigants, especially in property and commercial disputes where valuations have risen sharply over the past decade.

The platform has further argued that district courts across India already exercise substantially broader pecuniary jurisdiction. It has maintained that district courts are fully capable of handling higher-value disputes and that the Delhi High Court should primarily function as a constitutional and appellate court.

At the same time, it has stressed that any enhancement should be phased and accompanied by infrastructural strengthening, judicial appointments, specialised benches and digitisation.

Advocate Sandeep Lamba has described the controversy as reflecting a deeper tension between decentralised access to justice and preservation of a centralised higher judiciary.

According to Lamba, shifting lower-value civil disputes to district courts would reduce litigation costs, make justice geographically more accessible and help decongest the Delhi High Court by allowing it to focus on constitutional, appellate and complex commercial matters.

He has also argued that enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction would strengthen the district bar institutionally by increasing the financial value and complexity of disputes handled before trial courts.

Yet the opposition to the proposal is not merely institutional conservatism.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku, designated senior member of the DHCBA executive, has framed the association’s objection substantially around the process through which the exercise is being undertaken.

According to Tiku, the representation seeking enhancement was addressed to the Union government and not to the Delhi High Court. Since pecuniary jurisdiction is ultimately a matter of legislative and governmental determination, he argues that the high court, itself being a stakeholder, ought not to proactively recommend changes unless formally called upon by the Centre.

Tiku’s objection, therefore, is directed less at the concept of enhancement itself and more at what he perceives as an institutional overreach by a constitutional court entering the policy domain without invitation from the executive.

Tiku has also cautioned against an abrupt increase from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore, arguing that such a steep jump could virtually wipe out a substantial segment of original side litigation before the high court.

According to him, the Delhi High Court’s original side presently supports thousands of advocates, including a large number of young practitioners who have built their careers around civil litigation before the high court.

For sections of the high court bar, the concern is also linked to adjudicatory standards and the institutional character of the Delhi High Court.

Senior Advocate Abhijat Bal has argued that any enhancement exercise must be preceded by a scientific and empirical study conducted by an expert body rather than through arbitrary revision.

Bal has stressed that litigants approaching the high court historically had access to judges occupying a constitutionally superior position within the judicial hierarchy and that any dilution of the original side structure requires careful assessment of its long-term impact on litigants themselves.

He has also advocated broader stakeholder consultation, including participation of senior original side practitioners.

At the same time, several lawyers have questioned whether strikes and abstention from judicial work are an appropriate means to resolve what is essentially a structural policy issue.

Advocate Gorang Goyal, practising at the Delhi High Court, believes the present ₹2 crore threshold may indeed require reconsideration given changing economic realities since 2015.

However, he argues that disruptions caused by strike calls ultimately hurt litigants and younger lawyers more than institutions. According to Goyal, the issue requires meaningful consultation among stakeholders rather than competing boycott calls.

Legally, the position remains that pecuniary jurisdiction is ultimately determined through legislative action and governmental policy. Historically, revisions in pecuniary limits have reflected changing economic conditions, inflation, property valuations and judicial workload.

The present debate, therefore, extends beyond a mere numerical revision. It concerns the future role of the Delhi High Court as an original side court, the growing push towards decentralisation of civil justice and the extent to which institutional reform can be balanced against concerns of judicial hierarchy, professional impact and litigant convenience.