The Delhi High Court Bar Association has suspended work to protest the decision to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore. Lawyers argue this change could reduce the number of cases heard by the High Court by up to 70%, directly impacting their professional livelihoods.
The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has announced a suspension of work in response to an administrative decision concerning the court's jurisdiction. The conflict stems from a recommendation to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts in the national capital from the current threshold of ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore.
Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the financial limit of a lawsuit that determines which court has the authority to hear a case. By raising this limit, a significantly larger volume of civil disputes will now fall under the authority of district courts rather than the High Court. The DHCBA executive committee has expressed strong opposition, estimating that this shift could lead to a 70 percent reduction in cases handled by the High Court’s Original Side. For practicing lawyers, this represents a major change in the availability of cases that historically fall under High Court proceedings.
The decision followed a series of internal administrative actions. Earlier, a committee of judges was formed to evaluate a proposal to increase the threshold to ₹20 crore, a request originally championed by the coordination committee of the All District Courts Bar Association of Delhi in May 2025. Following the review, the High Court reportedly moved forward with the ₹10 crore limit. The DHCBA had attempted to challenge the creation of this committee through a legal petition, but a division bench of the High Court declined to stop the committee from presenting its report to the full court.
While the Delhi High Court Act of 1966 technically governs these jurisdictional limits and typically requires an act of Parliament to amend, the court has maintained that it retains the authority to examine and provide recommendations on administrative matters that improve the efficiency of the justice delivery system. The suspension of work serves as a protest against the implementation of these changes. As the situation remains in flux, the primary monitorable for legal professionals and observers is whether the High Court addresses the concerns raised by the association or proceeds with the notification to formalize the new jurisdictional limits.