The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to grant interim relief to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA) and the International Trademark Association (INTA) in their challenge to the ongoing process examining the proposal to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s District Courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Tejas Karia declined to restrain the seven-judge committee constituted by the Full Court from placing its report before the Full Court. The Bench held that the petitioners had failed to establish the essential requirements for grant of interim relief, namely a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable injury.
The Court observed that the committee was only undertaking a consultative and recommendatory exercise concerning the administration of justice. It clarified that the committee neither possessed adjudicatory powers nor legislative authority, and any enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts could be brought into effect only through a statutory amendment to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, enacted by Parliament.
The litigation arose from a representation submitted by the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi to Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and members of the Law Commission in May 2025, seeking enhancement of the pecuniary limits of the District Courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 20 crore. Following the representation, the Full Court of the Delhi High Court constituted a seven-judge committee to consult stakeholders, examine the issue from the perspective of judicial administration and submit its recommendations. The committee presently comprises Justices V Kameswar Rao, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Dinesh Mehta, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla.
The petitioners sought an interim stay on the presentation of the committee’s report before the Full Court and also requested prior disclosure of the report. Rejecting the plea, the Division Bench held that although legislative competence to alter the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court and District Courts vests exclusively in Parliament, there is no constitutional or statutory bar preventing the High Court, on its administrative side, from examining issues affecting the justice delivery system and forwarding its recommendations to the competent legislative or executive authority.
The Bench observed that recommendations made by the High Court do not have binding legal effect and cannot, by themselves, amend a statute, alter the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court or modify the jurisdiction of subordinate courts. Such institutional consultations and exchange of views between constitutional authorities, the Court said, form part of the constitutional scheme and are intended to facilitate informed legislative decision-making.
Rejecting the contention that the consultative exercise violated the principles of natural justice, the Court noted that the committee had invited the DHCBA and other stakeholders to participate in the consultation process. It recorded that detailed written representations submitted by the stakeholders had been considered by the committee before finalising its report. The Bench therefore found no procedural unfairness or denial of an opportunity to be heard.
The Court also examined the rationale behind reviewing the existing pecuniary limits. It observed that the monetary threshold of Rs 2 crore, introduced through the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, has remained unchanged for over a decade despite a substantial escalation in the value of immovable properties, rapid urbanisation and significant expansion of commercial activity in the National Capital Territory. The Bench noted that even comparatively modest residential properties in Delhi now frequently exceed the existing threshold, resulting in civil suits relating to specific performance, possession, partition, declaration of title and permanent or mandatory injunctions being instituted before the High Court instead of the District Courts.
According to the Court, this jurisdictional framework inevitably increases the cost and inconvenience of litigation, as disputes arising within different parts of Delhi are required to be adjudicated by the High Court rather than the local district judiciary. It further observed that Delhi presently has eleven judicial districts equipped with adequate judicial infrastructure, and the changed demographic and commercial landscape justifies an institutional examination of whether the existing pecuniary limits continue to serve the objective of ensuring efficient, accessible and decentralised justice.
The Bench reiterated that while the High Court is competent to study the issue and make recommendations, the final determination regarding any revision of the pecuniary jurisdiction rests solely with Parliament through legislative amendment. The committee’s report, it clarified, is only intended to assist the Full Court in formulating its views and does not create or alter any legal rights.
Finding no grounds for judicial interference at the interlocutory stage, the Division Bench dismissed the interim applications. The writ petitions challenging the constitution of the committee and the consultative process have been directed to be listed for further hearing on July 24, 2026.
The post Delhi High Court refuses to stall full court panel report on raising pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts appeared first on India Legal.