Delhi Lawyers Split as HC Bar Strikes Against ₹20 Crore District Courts’ Pecuniary Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Monday abstained from judicial work to protest against a proposal seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts from the present ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore, intensifying a growing face-off between lawyers practising in the high court and those in the district judiciary.

The executive committee of the DHCBA passed a resolution objecting to the Delhi High Court taking cognizance of the proposal and constituting a committee of judges to examine the issue. The association has argued that any change in pecuniary jurisdiction is a matter of legislative policy and cannot be initiated by the high court on its own.

What the Proposal Seeks

Pecuniary jurisdiction determines the monetary value of civil disputes that a court can entertain. At present, civil suits valued above ₹2 crore are heard by the Delhi High Court on its original side, while matters below that threshold are adjudicated by district courts. The proposal under consideration seeks to raise the district courts’ jurisdiction to ₹20 crore, which would result in a substantial shift of commercial and civil litigation away from the high court.

The controversy traces its origin to a May 23, 2025 representation made by the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations to the Union law ministry and members of the Law Commission, requesting enhancement of the pecuniary limits of district courts. Thereafter, during a full court meeting on September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court constituted a committee of judges to consult stakeholders and submit recommendations on the issue.

DHCBA opposing the increase of pecuniary limit

The DHCBA has consistently opposed the move since January this year. In a resolution passed on January 28, the association said it would “firmly oppose” any enhancement from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore and constituted a committee of senior lawyers to formulate a strategy against the proposal.

On Monday, the protest also drew judicial criticism. A Delhi High Court judge reportedly disapproved of the lawyers’ abstention from work, observing that such actions ultimately prejudice litigants and disrupt access to justice.

Rift Within Delhi’s Legal Fraternity

The strike by the DHCBA has, meanwhile, exposed sharp divisions within Delhi’s legal fraternity. The Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations strongly opposed the high court lawyers’ boycott call and accused the DHCBA of attempting to stall a long-pending reform.

In a circular issued over the weekend, the district court bar bodies said enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction was necessary in view of inflation, economic growth, mounting pendency before the Delhi High Court and the need to ensure easier access to justice. The committee asserted that district courts were institutionally equipped to handle higher-value commercial and civil disputes.

The district bar associations had themselves abstained from work earlier this month to press for the proposal, though they later withdrew their symbolic strike after drawing attention to the issue.

The DHCBA, however, has maintained that the issue concerns not merely redistribution of cases but also the institutional framework governing the Delhi High Court’s original civil jurisdiction. It has sought disclosure of all documents and resolutions relating to the constitution and functioning of the judges’ committee and demanded that further proceedings be kept in abeyance.