Judge criticises Delhi High Court Bar Association’s decision to abstain from work

DElhi heights margaret court adjudicate Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on mon criticised the new delhi High Court Bar Association’s (DHCBA) decision to abstain from work in protest against the court’s cognisance of a proposal to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.He called the move improper, not an appropriate solution, and emphasised that concerns should be raised before the relevant authorities. “How can you abstain from court work? If lawyers do not appear, who will suffer? You have to work for the litigants. Abstaining from the court is not proper. If you have grievances, it has to be put forth at an appropriate forum by an appropriate mechanism,” Justice Kaurav said after the lawyers appointed as proxy counsel told him that the association was abstaining from work.He asked how proxy counsel could appear when they had no instructions. “How can you assist without instructions? We are anyway left with a few working days [before vacations].”The coordination committee of the All District Courts Bar Association wrote to the Union law ministry in May 2025, seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts.The high court, during a full court meeting in September 2025, decided to constitute a committee to consult, study the issue, and submit recommendations. A six-judge committee comprising justices V Kameswar Rao, N W Sambre, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh, and Navin Chawla was subsequently formed.On May 22, the DHCBA executive committee decided to abstain from work. The following day, it issued a letter appointing proxy counsels across 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 resolutions passed by the full court constituting the committee and defining its mandate, be placed before the full court for consideration.In a letter on Friday, the DHCBA urged that further proceedings before the committee be kept in abeyance. The association argued that the full court had taken cognisance of the May 2025 letter even though it was addressed to the Union law ministry and not the high court.The association contended that the law ministry neither sought the high court’s views nor initiated any process on the issue, yet the full court proceeded to examine the request. The DHCBA argued that any change in pecuniary jurisdiction falls solely within the legislative domain. It said such a proposal should originate from the ministry.The DHCBA claimed that the high court lacked jurisdiction to initiate the process and that even the constitution of the committee was beyond its authority. It sought an opportunity to place its concerns before the full court.