Delhi HC Bar to boycott work on Monday over pecuniary jurisdiction issue

The DHCBA plans to abstain from work in protest against the Delhi High Court's proposal to raise district court pecuniary jurisdiction from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

The executive committee of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Friday resolved to abstain from work on Monday in protest against the Delhi high court taking cognisance of a proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary limit up to which a court can hear civil disputes.

Trial court lawyers had also abstained from work on Thursday in support of the demand to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.

The proposal stemmed from a letter written by the coordination committee of the All District Courts Bar Association to the Union law ministry on May 23, 2025, seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.

Following the letter, the Delhi high court, during a full court meeting on September 2, 2025, decided to constitute a committee to consult stakeholders, study the issue and submit recommendations. A six-judge committee comprising justices V Kameswar Rao, N W Sambre, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla was subsequently formed.

In a letter issued on Friday, the DHCBA urged that further proceedings before the committee be kept in abeyance. The association argued that the full court had taken cognisance of the May 23, 2025, letter even though it was addressed to the Union law ministry and not the Delhi high court.

The association contended that the law ministry had neither sought the high court’s views nor initiated any process on the issue, yet the full court proceeded to examine the request.

The DHCBA further argued that any change in pecuniary jurisdiction falls solely within the legislative domain and that such a proposal should originate from the ministry. It claimed that the high court lacked jurisdiction to initiate the process and that even the constitution of the committee was beyond its authority.

The association also sought an opportunity to place its concerns before the full court.

In a separate letter issued on Thursday, the DHCBA requested that all relevant documents, including agenda notes circulated before the full court, recommendations made by the chief justice on the issue, and copies of resolutions passed by the full court constituting the committee and defining its mandate, be placed before the full court for consideration.

executive committee of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Friday resolved to abstain from work on Monday in protest against the Delhi high court’s decision to take cognisance of the proposal to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the monetary value up to which a court is empowered to hear civil disputes.

To be sure, the trial court lawyers abstained from work on Thursday too , in support of their demand to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction.

The proposal originated from a letter written by the co-ordination committee of the All District Courts Bar Association to the Union law ministry on May 23, 2025, seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.

Following the letter, the Delhi high court, in its full court meeting on September 2, 2025, decided to constitute a committee to engage with stakeholders, undertake a holistic study of the issue and submit recommendations. It then constituted a committee of six senior judges — justices V Kameswar Rao, NW Sambre, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla.

In its letter on Friday, the DHCBA urged that further proceedings before the committee be kept in abeyance, contending that the full court had taken cognisance of the May 23, 2025, communication even though it was addressed to the Union law ministry and not to the Delhi high court.

The association argued that the law ministry had neither sought comments from the high court nor initiated any process on the issue, yet the full court proceeded to take cognisance of the request.

The DHCBA further asserted that alteration of pecuniary jurisdiction falls exclusively within the legislative domain and any proposal in that regard ought to emanate from the ministry. It claimed that the high court lacked jurisdiction to initiate such a move and that even the constitution of the committee to deliberate on the issue was without authority.

The association also sought an opportunity for its concerns to be placed before the full court.

In its letter on Thursday, the DHCBA had requested all relevant documents, including the notes and agenda circulated before the full court, any recommendations made by the chief justice on the issue, and copies of the resolutions passed by the full on court constituting the committee and defining its mandate, be placed before the full court for consideration.