The proposed Delhi High Court pecuniary jurisdiction increase from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore has triggered strong opposition from senior members of the legal fraternity. They argue that the move could make the High Court less accessible to ordinary litigants and weaken its role in shaping intellectual property (IP) law. Senior Advocates Chander Lall, Pravin Anand, Rajshekhar Rao, Shwetasree Majumder, Swathi Sukumar, and J. Sai Deepak have urged the Court to hold wider consultations with lawyers and litigants before finalizing the proposal.
Senior Lawyers Highlight Infrastructure Concerns
Senior Advocate Chander Lall said the Delhi High Court handles nearly 70 to 80 percent of India’s IP litigation. He explained that the Court has spent more than three decades building expertise in patent and commercial disputes.
He pointed out that district courts still lack essential facilities such as reliable internet, specialized registries, electronic evidence systems, and confidentiality clubs. According to Lall, these shortcomings make district courts unprepared to handle complex IP litigation. He also questioned why the committee’s report and dissenting opinions have not been made public.
Concerns Over Intellectual Property Cases
Senior Advocate Pravin Anand warned that the ₹10 crore threshold could shift nearly 70 percent of IP cases to district courts. He said trademark infringement and counterfeiting disputes would face the biggest impact because plaintiffs often file suits before damages become substantial.
Anand clarified that his concerns relate to institutional limitations rather than the competence of district judges. He noted that trial courts lack dedicated IP registries and structured systems for publishing judgments. As a result, their decisions rarely contribute to the development of legal precedents. He called for constructive dialogue between the Bench and the Bar before implementing the proposal.
Call for a Phased Increase
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao said important questions of IP law often arise in cases involving relatively low monetary values. He warned that transferring such matters would slow the development of IP jurisprudence.
Rao also noted that the Delhi High Court has taken years to resolve complex disputes involving artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. He suggested increasing the pecuniary limit gradually, starting at ₹5 crore, then ₹7.5 crore, and finally ₹10 crore after reviewing the readiness of district courts.
Court Fees and Jurisdictional Challenges
Senior Advocate Shwetasree Majumder highlighted another concern—the absence of a cap on Delhi’s ad valorem court fees. She explained that a ₹20 crore suit attracts ₹20 lakh in court fees, unlike cities such as Mumbai and Kolkata where fee caps exist.
She added that district courts currently lack systems for sealed records and confidentiality clubs. These limitations could encourage litigants to file commercial and IP disputes in other High Courts instead of Delhi.
Fear of Institutional Elitism
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar described the Delhi High Court as a globally respected forum for intellectual property disputes. She argued that the proposed increase lacks empirical support and unfairly affects IP litigation.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak warned that the proposal could create an impression that high-quality justice is available only to wealthy litigants. He suggested fixing the threshold at ₹5 crore or introducing a maximum court fee between ₹3 lakh and ₹5 lakh. He also demanded that the committee’s report and dissenting opinions be released before any recommendation reaches the government.
Background of the Dispute
The Delhi High Court pecuniary jurisdiction proposal led the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) to announce strike action. The Bar Association argued that raising the pecuniary limit would remove nearly 70 percent of the High Court’s original civil cases.
The dispute began after a Full Court committee examined a proposal to increase the district courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore. The committee later recommended a ₹10 crore limit. The High Court clarified that Parliament alone can amend the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, but the Court can recommend administrative changes after reviewing judicial requirements.
