The proposal to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore has triggered a legal and institutional debate within the national capital’s legal fraternity. While district court lawyers are backing the move, the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) is questioning both its rationale and implementation.
Currently, civil disputes valued above ₹2 crore are heard by the Delhi High Court, while matters below that amount fall within the jurisdiction of district courts.
In May 2025, the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi approached the Union Law Ministry and the Law Commission, seeking an increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts. Subsequently, in September 2025, the Full Court of the High Court constituted a committee of senior judges to interact with stakeholders and examine the proposal.
Brief history
Since the High Court was established in 1966, the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts in Delhi has been revised several times. When the Delhi High Court Act came into force, the High Court exercised original civil jurisdiction over suits valued at more than ₹25,000. The threshold was subsequently increased to ₹50,000 in 1970, ₹1 lakh in 1980, ₹5 lakh in 1992, and ₹20 lakh in 2003.
The last revision took place in 2015, when Parliament enacted the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹20 lakh to ₹2 crore.
Why the change?
District court bar associations argue that the economic conditions that existed in 2015 have changed significantly. According to advocate Nagendra Kumar, spokesperson of the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi, rising property prices, inflation and increasing commercial activity have rendered the ₹2-crore threshold outdated.
“₹2 crore is negligible. The monetary value of disputes involving property etc., has increased substantially over the last decade. Result is cases which are otherwise suited for adjudication by district courts end up at the High Court,” Mr Kumar said.
‘Parliament’s function’
The DHCBA opposed the proposal and, on May 26, filed a petition before the High Court challenging the constitution of the committee of judges. One of its central arguments is that determining or enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts is an exclusive legislative function vested in Parliament.
In its petition, the DHCBA also questions whether district courts have the capacity to absorb the volume and complexity of litigation that may be transferred if the threshold is increased.
According to figures cited in the petition, there are 12,891 pending matters on the original civil side of the Delhi High Court. The DHCBA claims that if the pecuniary threshold is raised to ₹20 crore, more than 11,700 cases, or 90.74% of the total, would be transferred from the High Court to the district courts.
Similarly, of the 1,426 pending commercial suits, 1,320 (92.5%) are valued below ₹20 crore and would be transferred. In addition, of the 2,771 pending intellectual property rights (IPR) suits, 2,745 (99.06%) are valued below ₹20 crore and would fall outside the High Court’s jurisdiction.
“Adding nearly 11,700 complex, document-heavy commercial and civil suits to a subordinate judiciary where individual judges are already handling 1,400 to 1,800 active cases will severely disrupt court operations,” the DHCBA said in its plea, adding that the move risks overwhelming the lower courts and slowing the disposal of smaller cases involving ordinary citizens.
Counterargument
The district courts’ side, however, disputes these concerns. Mr. Kumar told The Hindu that the role of the committee of judges is purely consultative and advisory, and not decision-making. He further argued that, since the DHCBA had participated in the committee’s proceedings, it could not now challenge the committee’s constitutionality.
“Our contention from day one has been that this will facilitate justice at the doorstep in the lower courts. This will ultimately help litigants and the general public,” Mr. Kumar said.
He also pointed to observations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee that examined the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Bill, 2014. In its 72nd Report, presented to Parliament in November 2014, the committee stated that the legacy of original civil jurisdiction inherited by chartered High Courts from the colonial era required reconsideration.
The committee went a step further, observing that district civil courts across the country, including those in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, should eventually be given unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the committee, such a move would reduce the burden on High Courts and allow them to focus primarily on appellate and constitutional work.
For now, all eyes are on the Delhi High Court, which is seized of DHCBA’s plea challenging the committee’s examination of the proposal.
Published – June 04, 2026 07:28 pm IST
