Delhi High Court Challenges DHCBA’s Plea on Pecuniary Jurisdiction
The Delhi High Court recently addressed a plea from the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) contesting the establishment of a committee of judges tasked with evaluating a proposed increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts. The plea was deemed unmaintainable by the High Court’s Registrar General.
In response to this plea, a Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Tejas Karia requested the High Court administration to submit their objections formally. Advocate Amit George, representing the administrative side of the High Court, expressed opposition to the maintainability of DHCBA’s petition. Consequently, the court granted the administration additional time to file a detailed response and scheduled the next hearing for June 1.
Coordination Committee’s Stance
Simultaneously, the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations presented similar arguments questioning the maintainability of the DHCBA’s plea. The court advised the Coordination Committee to apply for impleadment, as they were not initially named as a party in the DHCBA’s plea.
Background of the DHCBA’s Plea
The DHCBA’s challenge arises from a decision made in September 2025 by the full court of the Delhi High Court. This decision led to the formation of a committee consisting of Justices V Kameswar Rao, NW Sambre, Dinesh Mehta, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh, and Navin Chawla. The committee was tasked with assessing the proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crores.
The DHCBA’s petition also names this committee as a respondent. The origin of the committee’s formation is linked to a letter sent by the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Association of Delhi to Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and members of the Law Commission in May 2025. This letter advocated for increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.
More Read
DHCBA’s Arguments
The DHCBA contends that the judges’ committee was constituted after the full court took cognizance of the Coordination Committee’s letter, which was initially addressed to the Union Ministry of Law rather than to the Chief Justice of the High Court. They argue that the Ministry of Law neither solicited comments nor initiated the process, yet the full court proceeded based on the letter. The DHCBA also highlights that the High Court has not provided any justification for establishing the judges’ committee.
