New Delhi [India], July 15 : The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has resolved to continue its abstention from work on July 16, 2026, intensifying its protest against the proposed enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi's District Courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore.
In a resolution passed by its Executive Committee during an emergent meeting held on Wednesday, the DHCBA expressed appreciation to its members for their "full cooperation and solidarity" in observing the call for abstention from work on July 15.
It unanimously decided to extend the protest for another day in view of the Delhi High Court Full Court's decision regarding the increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, despite what the Bar described as its strong opposition to the proposal.
The Bar Association has requested all its members to abstain from appearing before the Delhi High Court on July 16, both physically and virtually, as part of the continuing protest. The resolution was issued by DHCBA Honorary Secretary Vikram Singh Panwar.
The dispute centres around the proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi's District Courts from Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore, a move that would result in a significant number of high-value commercial and civil disputes being transferred from the Delhi High Court to the district judiciary.
The DHCBA has consistently opposed the proposal, arguing that such a substantial increase requires wider consultation with stakeholders and could have far-reaching consequences for the administration of justice. The Association has maintained that the Delhi High Court should continue to hear a substantial class of higher-value civil matters.
As part of its agitation, the DHCBA had earlier called for abstention from work on July14 and July 15. It had also announced that the High Court's cafeteria, Bar rooms and other Bar facilities would remain closed during the protest.
The latest resolution indicates that the lawyers' body has decided to continue its agitation after taking note of the Full Court's position on the proposed enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction.