Delhi HC declines to restrain judges' committee from tabling report on district courts' pecuniary jurisdiction

A committee of judges constituted to examine the issue of increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts in the national capital was on Friday given a green signal by the Delhi High Court to table its report before the full court of the High Court..A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Tejas Karia rejected an application moved by Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to halt the process. It said the committee was constituted only as an internal mechanism by the full court to assist it in examination of the issue and for considering whether any recommendation ought to be made to the competent authority.While acknowledging that only the Parliament can amend the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the Court said the panel had neither undertaken nor claimed any legislative function. "The Committee has merely examined the issue placed before it and submitted its Report for consideration of the Full Court. Even if the Full Court ultimately resolves to forward its views or recommendations to the appropriate authority, such recommendation would, by itself, neither amends the statute nor have the effect of altering the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court or the District Courts. The legislative field continues to remain exclusively within the domain of Parliament," it added..DHCBA had filed an application to stop the report from being presented before the full court, arguing that any recommendation by the High Court would deprive lawyers' body of the opportunity to challenge a future amendment.However, the Court said a recommendation made by the High Court on its administrative side is merely consultative in character and does not culminate in any enforceable legal consequence. "If, at a subsequent stage, Parliament chooses to amend the statute, the validity of such legislation, if otherwise amenable to judicial review, would always remain open to challenge in accordance with law. Thus, no legal prejudice is shown to have been caused, or likely to be caused, to the Petitioners merely because the Full Court may consider the Committee's Report," the Bench said.The Court rejected the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, stating that the DHCBA and stakeholders were invited to participate in the consultative exercise and were afforded an opportunity to place their views and suggestions before the committee."Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners discloses any legal infirmity in the decision of the Full Court to constitute the Committee, to consult the stakeholders, and prepare the Report," the Bench said..Meanwhile, the Court also commented on the need to reconsider the existing pecuniary limits in national capital. It noted 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 ₹2 crore."Consequently, civil suits seeking reliefs such as specific performance, possession, partition, declaration or injunction, which otherwise arise from local disputes within different parts of Delhi, are presently required to be instituted before this Court. Such an arrangement inevitably requires litigants from all parts of the National Capital Territory to approach this Court, thereby increasing the inconvenience and cost associated with litigation," the Bench said.It added that Delhi has 11 judicial districts, where an adequate judicial infrastructure comprising district judges and civil judges has been established. "During nearly six (06) decades since the enactment of the statute, the population of Delhi has increased manifold and commercial activity has expanded substantially, making Delhi one of the foremost commercial centres of the country. Whether these changed circumstances justify a further revision of the pecuniary jurisdiction is a matter which Parliament alone may ultimately determine," the Bench further said..The plea seeking to halt presentation of the report had been moved in DHCBA's already pending case challenging a full court decision of the High Court to constitute the committee of judges to examine the proposal to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts in the national capital from ₹2 crores to ₹20 crores. Notably, the committee of judges was constituted after a meeting of the full court on September 2, 2025. At present, the committee consists of Justices V Kameswar Rao, Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Dinesh Mehta, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla. The coordination committee of the All District Courts Bar Association of Delhi had, in May 2025, written to Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal and members of the Law Commission requesting the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crores to ₹20 crores. A committee of Delhi High Court judges was then constituted to consider the issue and to interact with the stakeholders and make recommendations..However, the DHCBA has been opposing the move.It is DHCBA's case that the judges' committee was constituted after the full court took cognisance of the letter written by the Coordination Committee of all district court bar associations. The DHCBA's case is that the letter was addressed to the Union Ministry of Law and not to the High Court Chief Justice. It is also clear that the Ministry of Law did not seek either comments or initiate the process, but the full court went ahead and took cognisance of the letter issued by the Co-ordination Committee, the DHCBA said. It added that no reason has been provided on why the High Court constituted the judges' committee. .Senior Advocate AS Chandhiok, Rajiv Mehra, N Hariharan, Sachhin Puri, Rakesh Tinku, Prem Lata Bansal and Avi Singh appeared for the DHCBA. Advocate Amit George represented the Delhi High Court. [Read Order]