DHCBA Withdraws Strike Call After Talks With Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya
The DHCBA has withdrawn its call to abstain from work after talks with Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and an assurance from Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, but says its opposition to the pecuniary jurisdiction hike will continue.
Delhi HC Bar Strike Withdrawn, But DHCBA Vows To Keep Fighting Pecuniary Jurisdiction Hike
The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has, for the time being, withdrawn its call for lawyers to abstain from work, following discussions with Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and an assurance from Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya that the Bar's concerns would be taken into account.
The DHCBA, however, clarified it will continue its opposition to the proposed increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts and will pursue its efforts on the issue, even as the immediate call to strike has been called off.
The development comes today after Lawyers at the Delhi High Court have abstained from work for the third consecutive day on July 16, intensifying their protest against a proposal to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi's district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore. The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) contends that the move would drastically reduce the High Court's original civil jurisdiction, affect lawyers' livelihoods, and disrupt the efficient adjudication of specialised commercial disputes.
The strike also drew support from professional bodies beyond the DHCBA itself. The Asian Patent Attorneys Association (Indian Group) and the Intellectual Property Attorneys Association both passed resolutions extending solidarity to the DHCBA during the agitation, citing shared concerns over the pecuniary jurisdiction enhancement and its potential impact on specialised litigation before the High Court, including intellectual property disputes.
Through the course of the strike, DHCBA President, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, had maintained that the Association's objective was not confrontation but to ensure that the Bar's concerns were heard by the High Court administration before any final decision was taken on the enhancement.
With the strike now withdrawn following the intervention of the Law Minister and the assurance from the Chief Justice, the immediate disruption to court functioning has ended. However, the DHCBA has been categorical that the pause in its agitation should not be read as an end to its opposition on merits, and that it intends to continue pursuing the matter through sustained negotiation and appropriate institutional channels, keeping its underlying objections to the pecuniary jurisdiction enhancement firmly on record even as normal court functioning gradually resumes across Delhi.
What is the dispute?
The controversy stems from a recommendation made by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.
Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary limit up to which a court is empowered to hear civil disputes. At present, civil suits valued above ₹2 crore are instituted before the Delhi High Court on its original side. If the proposal is implemented, only disputes valued above ₹10 crore would be filed directly before the High Court, while all suits below that threshold would be transferred to district courts.