Why a proposal to expand district courts’ jurisdiction has sparked a strike at Delhi High Court

According to the Association, the enhancement would result in a reduction of the “original” jurisdiction – which is the authority of a court to hear and decide a case for the first time, before appeals – of the HC by “nearly 70%”.

More cases being decided by the district courts means lesser work for lawyers at the High Court. In January, the HC Bar had resolved to “firmly oppose any initiative to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction”.

Lawyers have been abstaining from work in the HC since Tuesday, citing the impact of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction on their practice, livelihoods and professional interests. On Thursday, the HC Bar decided to extend the abstention from work to Thursday. The Association resolved unanimously on Wednesday “to further continue to abstain from work on 16.07.2026”, and asked its members to “abstain from appearing, both physically and virtually”, before the court.

According to HC lawyers, the increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts would result in cases “languishing” in these courts for years. More than 6,000 suits are currently pending on the original side; around 10,000 commercial suits are pending as well, according to the National Judicial Data Grid. Almost 97,000 civil suits are pending in Delhi’s district courts.

The full court decision came after a Division Bench of the Delhi HC on July 10 refused interim relief in three petitions filed by the Bar Association, the Asian Patent Attorney Association, and the International Trademark Association, seeking a stay on a full court decision on the issue.

The issue of enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts has been under consideration since May last year, when the Coordination Committee of all District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi wrote to the Union Law Minister seeking enhancement.

The Chief Justice of the Delhi HC had then constituted a committee to examine the issue, consult stakeholders, and make its recommendations. Representatives of the Bar were invited to participate in the meetings of the Committee in January and May this year.

While refusing the interim relief, the Division Bench had reasoned that owing to the substantial increase in the value of immovable properties in Delhi, even disputes concerning “comparatively modest residential properties frequently exceed the existing pecuniary threshold of Rs 2 crores”. Given that it is only the HC that can entertain civil suits stemming from disputes over such properties, it increases “the inconvenience and cost associated with litigation”.

Why IP lawyers are especially concerned

Several lawyers dealing with commercial matters at Delhi HC said that in case of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, property disputes should be distinguished from specialised fields such as intellectual property (IP) law.

Advocate Mamta Rani Jha, co-managing partner at Inttl Advocare, who has an extensive commercial practice at the Delhi HC, said the proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts to Rs 10 crore would especially impact IP litigation by creating parallel proceedings in different courts.

“So you’ll have a suit pending at the district court (because the pecuniary jurisdiction in the suit is, say, less than Rs 10 crore) and then a revocation application (which challenges the existing IP rights) pending before Delhi HC. Even appeals against the order of IP offices have to be filed in the High Court. Additionally, the Patents Act and Designs Act contemplate that once the IP’s (patent/trademark) validity is challenged, the suit filed in the district court is to be transferred to HC,” Jha said.

Jha also pointed to the specialised expertise required of judges to hear IP matters and other infrastructural lacuna at district courts. “There are foreign witnesses who are examined; how will this be done at district courts?” she asked.

The pecuniary jurisdiction in Mumbai is Rs 10 crore, but it does not apply to IP-related cases, which are exclusively heard by the Bombay HC. The Madras HC and Himachal Pradesh HC have pecuniary jurisdiction of suits valued at over Rs 1 crore. The Calcutta High Court’s commercial division has exclusive jurisdiction over commercial suits valued over Rs 1 crore.