Delhi High Court Judge Puruchindra Kumar Kaurav on Monday criticized the decision of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to abstain from work in protest against the court’s approval of a proposal to increase pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from $2 Crores $20 Crores.
He described this step as inappropriate and not an appropriate solution, and stressed the need to raise concerns before the relevant authorities. “How can you abstain from working in court? If lawyers do not turn up, who will suffer? You have to work for the litigants. Abstaining from court is not right. If you have grievances, they should be raised in the appropriate forum through proper mechanism,” Justice Kaurav said after the lawyers appointed as acting advocates told him that the association would abstain from work.
He asked how the acting lawyer could attend when he had no instructions. “How can you help without instructions? We only have a few business days left.” [before vacations]”.
The Bar Association’s Coordination Committee of All District Courts wrote to the Federal Law Ministry in May 2025, seeking to strengthen the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.
During the full court session in September 2025, the Supreme Court decided to form a committee to consult, study the issue and make recommendations. A six-judge panel comprising Justices Kameswar Rao, NW Sambar, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Vivek Chaudhary, Pratibha M Singh and Naveen Chawla was later constituted.
On May 22, the DHCBA Executive Committee decided to abstain from work. The next day, it issued a letter appointing attorneys-at-law in all courts. In a letter on Thursday, the DHCBA requested that all relevant documents, including agenda notes circulated before the Full Court, recommendations made by the Chief Justice on the issue, and copies of decisions approved by the Full Court that constitutes the committee and determines its mandate, be placed before the Full Court for consideration.
In a letter on Friday, the DHCBA urged the suspension of further proceedings before the commission. The full bench took note of the May 2025 letter even though it was addressed to the Union Law Ministry and not the Supreme Court, the association said.
The association said that the Ministry of Law did not request the opinions of the Supreme Court and did not initiate any process on this issue, yet the full court proceeded to study the request. The DHCBA argued that any change in financial jurisdiction fell within the legislative domain only. She said such a proposal should come from the ministry.
The DHCBA claimed that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to initiate the process, and that even the formation of the committee was beyond its authority. He sought an opportunity to present his concerns before the full court.
