Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Stay on Committee Reviewing Proposal to Raise District Courts’ Pecuniary Jurisdiction

July 13, 2026 : The Delhi High Court has 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 consultation process examining a proposal to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi District Courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Tejas Karia declined to restrain the seven-judge committee constituted by the Full Court from submitting its report. The Bench held that the petitioners failed to establish the essential requirements for interim relief, namely a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

The dispute arose after the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi submitted a representation to Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and the Law Commission in May 2025, seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore. Following the representation, the Full Court of the Delhi High Court constituted a seven-judge committee to consult stakeholders and recommend whether the existing monetary limit should be revised.

The DHCBA challenged the committee’s constitution, arguing that the representation had been addressed to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice and not to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. It further contended that the Full Court had recorded no reasons for constituting the committee and sought an interim stay on the presentation of the committee’s report, along with prior disclosure of the report.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the committee was merely performing a consultative and recommendatory function relating to judicial administration. It emphasized that the committee possesses neither adjudicatory nor legislative powers and that any enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction can only be brought about through an amendment to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 by Parliament.

The Bench observed that there is no constitutional or statutory prohibition on the High Court examining issues affecting the administration of justice and forwarding its recommendations to the competent authorities. It further clarified that the committee’s recommendations would have no binding legal effect and could not alter the jurisdiction of any court unless Parliament enacted the necessary legislative amendment.

The Court also rejected the allegation of procedural unfairness, noting that the DHCBA and other stakeholders had been invited to participate in the consultation process and that their written representations had been duly considered before the committee finalized its report.

While examining the issue, the Bench observed that the existing pecuniary limit of ₹2 crore, introduced through the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, has remained unchanged for over a decade despite rapid urbanisation, soaring property prices and significant commercial growth in Delhi.

The Court noted that even relatively modest residential properties in the national capital are now often valued above ₹2 crore. As a result, civil disputes involving specific performance, possession, partition, declaration of title and injunctions are increasingly being filed before the High Court instead of District Courts, making litigation more expensive and less convenient for litigants.

Highlighting that Delhi now has eleven judicial districts with adequate judicial infrastructure, the Bench observed that the city’s demographic and commercial transformation justifies an institutional review of the existing pecuniary limits to promote efficient, accessible and decentralized justice.

The Court reiterated that judges, members of the Bar and the ministerial establishment are all stakeholders in ensuring effective administration of justice. However, it made it clear that the final decision on revising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi courts rests exclusively with Parliament through legislative amendment.

Finding no grounds for interim interference, the Division Bench dismissed the interim applications. The writ petitions challenging the constitution of the committee and the consultative process are scheduled for further hearing on July 24, 2026.