Delhi HC lawyers abstain from work over proposal to raise district courts’ pecuniary limits

The strike drew mixed reactions from both members of the bar and the bench. A judge observed that abstaining from work was “improper”, and that concerns should instead be raised before the relevant authorities

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

DHCBA vice-president Sacchin Puri described the strike as “substantially a success”. (HT Archive)

The strike drew mixed reactions from both members of the bar and the bench.

While several members of the bar, including its vice-president Sacchin Puri and member-designate senior advocate Rakesh Tiku, described the strike as “substantially a success”, justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav questioned the decision to abstain from work and expressed reservations over the mode of protest.

The judge observed that abstaining from work was “improper”, and that concerns should instead be raised before the relevant authorities. “How can you abstain from court work? If lawyers do not appear, who will suffer? You have to work for the litigants. Abstaining from the court is not proper. If you have grievances, it has to be put forth at an appropriate forum by an appropriate mechanism,” the judge said.

The judge also questioned how proxy counsels could appear in matters without instructions. “How can you assist without instructions? We are anyway left with a few working days (before vacations),” the bench said.

Following the exchange, members of the bar met the judge in open court for a discussion.

Later in the day, DHCBA vice-president Sacchin Puri described the strike as “substantially a success”.

Member-designate advocate Rakesh Tiku said, “When I entered in the morning, the parking was only 1/5th full and the parking on the road outside was also only 1/5th full. Going by this, we can safely assume that 80% people did not come at all, realising fully that there is no work happening in the court today.”

Explaining the reason behind the DHCBA’s decision, Tiku said that after the coordination committee of the All District Courts Bar Association wrote to the Union law ministry on May 23, 2025, seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts, the high court constituted a committee and sought the association’s response.

However, the DHCBA questioned the high court’s role in making recommendations on a matter that falls within the Union government’s jurisdiction. It also sought complete material related to the issue, but said the same was not provided. As a result, the association decided to hold a one-day “token strike”.

On judges raising concerns over the protest, Tiku said, “Hon’ble judges are required to carry on their work... They are not on strike. We are on strike. So on a given day, if the judges feel that something could be done, a necessary order could be passed; there is nothing wrong in that because judges have to work.”

The proposal to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts stemmed from a May 23, 2025, letter by the Coordination Committee of the All District Courts Bar Association to the Union law ministry, seeking an increase in jurisdiction from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

Subsequently, during a full court meeting on September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court decided to constitute a committee to consult stakeholders, examine the issue and submit recommendations. A six-judge committee comprising justices V Kameswar Rao, NW Sambre, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla was constituted for the purpose.

Opposing the move, the DHCBA executive committee on May 22 decided to abstain from work and, on May 23, issued a letter appointing proxy counsels across courts.

In a communication issued on Thursday, the DHCBA sought disclosure of documents, including agenda notes, recommendations of the chief justice and resolutions constituting the committee. In a subsequent letter on Friday, it urged that proceedings before the committee be kept in abeyance, contending that the full court had taken cognisance of a letter addressed to the law ministry despite no request or process having been initiated by the Centre.