Delhi High Court Bar Association to Boycott Work Over Proposal to Expand District Courts’ Pecuniary Jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has resolved to abstain from judicial work on July 14, protesting a proposal to substantially increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts. The move follows deliberations by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court on enhancing the jurisdictional limit from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore, despite the Bar Association’s continued opposition.
According to the DHCBA, the proposed revision would significantly curtail the Delhi High Court’s Original Side jurisdiction by shifting a large number of high-value civil and commercial disputes to the district judiciary. The Association claims that nearly 70% of the High Court’s Original Side cases could stand transferred if the proposal is implemented, fundamentally altering the distribution of civil litigation in the capital.
The Bar Association has expressed concern that the proposed change would have serious professional and institutional consequences. In its resolution, it stated that the decision to abstain from work was taken after considering the “serious adverse consequences” likely to affect its members and the functioning of the High Court’s Original Side practice.
The issue has remained contentious for months, with district bar associations largely supporting an enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction to reduce the High Court’s caseload and strengthen district courts, while the DHCBA has consistently resisted the proposal. Earlier rounds of protests and strikes by both High Court and district court lawyers reflected the sharp divide within Delhi’s legal fraternity over the appropriate forum for adjudicating high-value civil disputes.
Supporters of the proposal argue that increasing the jurisdiction of district courts would decentralise civil litigation, improve access to justice, and allow the High Court to focus on constitutional, appellate, and complex commercial matters. Opponents, however, contend that a large-scale transfer of original civil jurisdiction could adversely affect litigants accustomed to the High Court’s specialised procedures and significantly impact advocates practicing on the Original Side.
The proposed enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction is expected to remain a key administrative and judicial policy issue, with its eventual implementation likely to reshape the structure of civil litigation in Delhi. The DHCBA’s latest boycott underscores the continuing debate over balancing judicial efficiency with institutional traditions and the interests of litigants and the legal profession.
