The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) called off its three‑day work abstention that began on July 14, after senior members met Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. The move reflects deep unease over the government's plan to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts from the current ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore.

Background: What Is Pecuniary Jurisdiction?

Pecuniary jurisdiction limits a court’s authority based on the monetary value of the dispute. Raising this ceiling allows lower‑tier courts to hear higher‑value cases, ostensibly easing the docket of higher courts. However, senior advocates, especially those practicing intellectual property (IP) law, warn that such a shift could create a “practical asymmetry” in the enforcement of IP rights across the High Court and district courts.

IP‑Specific Reservations

Senior advocate Swathi Sukumar told reporters that the justification for the increase is “arbitrary” because no data has been presented on the growth of IP‑related litigation. Likewise, J Sai Deepak noted that the full court’s report, which contains dissenting opinions, has not been shared with the Bar, undermining transparency.

Government and Judiciary Response

Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya assured the DHCBA that their written representations would be considered before any final decision is relayed to the government. He also emphasized the need for a more inclusive consultation process, especially on matters that intersect with specialized fields like IP.

Potential Implications

If district courts acquire a higher pecuniary ceiling, IP‑related disputes could be split between the High Court and district courts, leading to inconsistent precedents and increased procedural uncertainty for innovators and startups. This could also pressure the High Court to revisit its own jurisdictional thresholds.

The strike’s cancellation underscores the importance of dialogue between the legal fraternity and policymakers, yet it also signals that the debate over pecuniary jurisdiction—especially its impact on IP enforcement—remains far from resolved.