Delhi High Court Bar Association & Anr. vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors.

$~SB-1 to 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 7752/2026, CM APPL. 37494/2026, CM APPL.
38475/2026 and CM APPL. 38476/2026
DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. A. S. Chandiok, Mr. Rajiv
Mehra, Mr. N. Hariharan, Mr.
Sachhin Puri, Mr. Rakesh
Tinku and Ms. Prem Lata
Bansal and Mr. Avi Singh, Sr.
Advs. along with Mr. Vikram
Singh Panwar, Ms. Kanika
Singh, Mr. Kunal Malhotra, Mr.
B.S. Dhir, Ms. Kajal Chandra,
Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Mr. Amit
Choudhary, Ms. Chandrika
Gupta, Mr. Lakshay Kaushik,
Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Ms. Punya
Rekha Angara, Mr. Ashish, Mr.
Monu Kumar, Mr. Krishna
Shukla, Mr. Tranpreet Gulati,
Ms. Purva Kohli, Ms. Archana
Sadadeva, Mr. Jaspreet Singh
Kapur, Mr. Shivang Sharma,
and Mr. Jitesh P. Gupta, Advs.
for Delhi High Court Bar
Association/P-1.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Adv. for P-
2 along with P-2.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Dr. Amit George, Ms. Rupam
Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Ms.
Medhavi Bhatia, Advs. for
Delhi High Court.
Mr. Sachin Sangwan, Mr.
Gaurav Choudhary, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 1 of 16

Harshvardhan Bhardwaj, Ms.
Salma Saifi and Ms. Janhvi
Singh, Advs.
Mr. D. K. Sharma and Mr.
Vijay S. Bishnoi, Advs. for
Secretary General, Co-
ordination Committee of All
District Courts Bar
Associations of Delhi.
Mr. Rama Krishnan V., Sr.
Adv. along with Mr. D.K.
Sharma, Chairman, Mr. Vijay
S. Bishnoi, Secretary General,
Mr. Shivam Verma, Mr.
Avneesh Rana, Mr. Neeraj, Mr.
Mayan Rexwal, Mr. Tarun
Rana, Mr. Ashish Khatri, Mr.
Dhananjay Kumar, Mr. Sunny
Pandey, Mr. Shivam, Mr.
Mayur, Mr. Puneet Dhawan,
Mr. Anish Singh, Mr. Pradeep
Singh, Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Mr.
M.M. Khan, Mr. G.S. Mishra,
Ms. Abha Singh, Mr. Navneet
Panwar, Mr. Jasraj Singh, Mr.
Rajiv Telhan, Mr. Nagendra
Kumar, Mr. Pradeep Singh, Mr.
Ghan Shyam, Mr. Navneet
Panwar, Mr. Pradeep Khatri,
Mr. Moolchand Verma, Advs.
for Coordination Committee.
(2)
+ W.P.(C) 8029/2026, CM APPL. 38478/2026, CM APPL.
38479/2026
ASIAN PATENT ATTORNEY ASSOCIATION (APAA) &
ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Mr. Aamna
Hasan, Ms. Anupriya Shyam
and Ms. Vaibhavi S. G., Advs.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 2 of 16

Through: Dr. Amit George, Ms. Rupam
Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Ms.
Medhavi Bhatia, Advs. for
Delhi High Court.
(3)
+ W.P.(C) 9165/2026, CM APPL. 42960/2026, CM APPL.
42961/2026, CM APPL. 42962/2026
INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION (INTA)
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv.
along with Ms. Urfee Roomi,
Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Mr.
Jaskaran Singh, Ms. Suhrita
Majumdar, Mr. Debjyoti, and
Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali
R. Mittal, Mr. Shivang Sharma
and Mr. Jitesh Prakash Gupta,
Adv.
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Dr. Amit George, Ms. Rupam
Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Gandhi, Ms.
Medhavi Bhatia, Advs. for
Delhi High Court.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
O R D E R (ORAL)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
CM APPL. 37493/2026 [For stay] in W.P.(C) 7752/2026
CM APPL. 38477/2026 [For stay] in W.P.(C) 8029/2026
CM APPL. 42959/2026 [For stay] in W.P.(C) 9165/2026
1. While seeking interim relief in these Applications, the
Petitioners seek stay of the presentation of the Pecuniary Jurisdiction
Report before the Full Court during the pendency of the present Writ
Petitions and providing a copy of the same to the Petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 3 of 16

Arguments on the prayer for grant of interim relief in these three (03)
connected Writ Petitions have been heard together as they raise a
common question.
2. The controversy in the present proceedings arises out of a
representation dated 23.05.2025 [‘ Representation ’] from the
Coordination Committee of all District Courts Bar Associations of
Delhi, which was addressed to the Hon'ble Union Minister of Law and
Justice seeking enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
District Courts and a copy of the Representation was simultaneously
endorsed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court.
3. The Representation was, thereafter, placed before the Full Court
of this Court in its meeting held on 02.09.2025. After due deliberation,
the Full Court of this Court resolved that a Committee be constituted
by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to examine the issue after interacting with
all stakeholders and to submit its recommendations. The relevant
extract of the Resolution reads as under:-

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 4 of 16

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of this Court constituted a Committee comprising seven (07) senior-
most Judges of this Court [‘ Committee ’]. The Committee, while
undertaking the consultative exercise entrusted to it, invited the views
of various stakeholders. In this regard, communications dated
24.01.2026 and 16.04.2026 were addressed to the Petitioner, Delhi
High Court Bar Association [‘ DHCBA ’]. Representatives of the
DHCBA were invited to participate in the meetings of the Committee
held on 27.01.2026 and 18.05.2026. Other stakeholders were also
invited to place their views and suggestions before the Committee.
The Petitioners have sought direction against the proposed placement
of the said Report prepared by the Committee before the Full Court of
this Court.
5. Mr. A. S. Chandiok, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the DHCBA has, in substance, advanced the following
submissions:
i. the Full Court of this Court lacked jurisdiction to
constitute the Committee, particularly when the Representation
was not addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice;
ii. the Full Court of this Court could not have taken
cognizance of the Representation merely because a copy thereof
had been marked to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court;
iii. Parliament alone possesses the legislative competence to
amend the Delhi High Court Act, 1966;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 5 of 16

iv. if the Full Court of this Court forwards any
recommendation, the Petitioners would be deprived of the
opportunity of challenging the proposed amendment;
v. the DHCBA ought to have been included as a member of
the Committee;
vi. the Committee's Report ought to have been supplied to
the stakeholders before being placed before the Full Court of
this Court; and
vii. failure to furnish a copy of the Report amounts to
violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the International Trademark Association [‘ INTA ’], further
submitted that the Bar constitutes an important stakeholder in the
administration of justice. According to him, unless a copy of the
Committee's Report is supplied to the stakeholders, the same may not
be placed before the Full Court of this Court for consideration of the
same.
7. The remaining learned counsel appearing for the respective
Petitioners adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. A.S. Chandiok
and Mr. Chander M. Lall.
8. Per contra, Dr. Amit George, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the High Court of Delhi submitted that a copy of the
Representation had admittedly been marked to Hon'ble the Chief
Justice. It was further contended that Parliament alone possesses the
legislative competence to amend the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 6 of 16

that the Committee has merely submitted its Report to the Full Court.
Consequently, no actionable cause has arisen in favour of the
Petitioners.
9. It was further submitted on behalf of the High Court of Delhi
and the Committee that the Petitioners were afforded adequate
opportunity to place their views before the Committee and that the
representations and suggestions received from various stakeholders
formed part of the consultative process undertaken by the Committee.
10. Mr. Rama Krishnan V., learned senior counsel, appearing on
behalf of the Coordination Committee of all District Courts Bar
Associations of Delhi, while placing reliance upon Rule 2 of Part A of
Chapter IX of Volume V of the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018, submitted that the High Court, while acting on its
administrative side, is competent to express its views and make
recommendations on matters directly concerning the administration of
justice. He further referred to Article 235 of the Constitution of India
to contend that the High Court exercises administrative control over
the subordinate judiciary and also drew attention to the
communications dated 24.01.2026 and 16.04.2026, whereby the
DHCBA was invited to participate in the consultative exercise.
11. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the respective parties. It is well settled that before granting
any interim relief, the Court is required to satisfy itself regarding the
existence of the following essential requirements:
i. whether the Petitioners have succeeded in making out a
prima facie case;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 7 of 16

ii. whether the balance of convenience lies in their favour;
and
iii. whether refusal of interim relief would result in
irreparable injury incapable of being adequately compensated at
a later stage.
12. At the outset, it may be noticed that the pecuniary jurisdiction
of this Court is governed by the provisions of the Delhi High Court
Act, 1966, which is a Parliamentary enactment. While examining
whether the Petitioners have succeeded in making out a prima facie
case warranting grant of interim relief, it deserves to be noticed that
the issue pertains to the proposed enhancement of the pecuniary
jurisdiction of this Court, which can ultimately be brought about only
by an amendment to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. It is not disputed
before this Court that the power to amend the said enactment vests
exclusively in Parliament. The immediate question, therefore, is
considerably narrower, namely, whether this Court, while exercising
its judicial jurisdiction, ought to restrain the Committee constituted for
the purpose of examining the issue, from placing its Report before the
Full Court of this Court for consideration on its administrative side.
13. The issue also requires to be appreciated in its proper
constitutional and institutional perspective. The High Court, on its
judicial side, is being called upon to prohibit the Committee
constituted pursuant to a resolution of the Full Court of this Court
from placing the Report for consideration of the Full Court of this
Court on its administrative side. The Report itself concerns a
Representation submitted by the Coordination Committee of all
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 8 of 16

District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi seeking enhancement of the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts.
14. It is apposite to notice that the Chartered High Courts
established in the Presidency Towns inherited original civil
jurisdiction in respect of civil disputes of specified valuation.
Although the High Court of Delhi is not one of the Chartered High
Courts, Parliament, while enacting the Delhi High Court Act, 1966,
conferred ordinary original civil jurisdiction upon this Court in respect
of civil suits exceeding the pecuniary limit prescribed under the Act.
That pecuniary threshold has undergone revision from time to time in
accordance with changing circumstances and presently stands at Rs.
2,00,00,000/-, as substituted by the Delhi High Court (Amendment)
Act, 2015 with effect from 10.08.2015.
15. Courts exist for the benefit of citizens, who approach them in
search of justice. Access to justice remains one of the foundational
aspirations of our constitutional system. Judges, members of the Bar
and the ministerial establishment are merely facilitators in the
administration of justice, whose collective endeavour must always be
directed towards ensuring that justice is delivered efficiently,
effectively and as close to the citizens as practicable.
16. It also cannot be ignored that, owing to the substantial increase
in the value of immovable properties in Delhi, even disputes
concerning comparatively modest residential properties frequently
exceed the existing pecuniary threshold of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
Consequently, civil suits seeking reliefs such as specific performance,
possession, partition, declaration or injunction, which otherwise arise
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 9 of 16

from local disputes within different parts of Delhi, are presently
required to be instituted before this Court. Such an arrangement
inevitably requires litigants from all parts of the National Capital
Territory to approach this Court, thereby increasing the inconvenience
and cost associated with litigation.
17. Simultaneously, the National Capital Territory of Delhi is
presently served by eleven (11) judicial districts, where an adequate
judicial infrastructure comprising District Judges and Civil Judges has
been established. The Representation submitted by the Coordination
Committee, which ultimately led to the constitution of the Committee,
seeks reconsideration of the existing pecuniary limits in the light of
these changed circumstances. The Petitioners apprehend that, once the
Committee's Report is placed before the Full Court of this Court, it
may forward its recommendations to the competent authority.
However, any such recommendation, by itself, neither amends the law
nor alters the existing jurisdiction of any Court.
18. It is equally significant to bear in mind that the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966, having been enacted by Parliament for establishing
the High Court of Delhi and defining, inter alia , its ordinary original
civil jurisdiction, can be amended only through Parliamentary
legislation. During nearly six (06) decades since the enactment of the
statute, the population of Delhi has increased manifold and
commercial activity has expanded substantially, making Delhi one of
the foremost commercial centres of the country. Whether these
changed circumstances justify a further revision of the pecuniary
jurisdiction is a matter which Parliament alone may ultimately
determine. The present exercise undertaken by the Committee is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 10 of 16

confined only to examining the issue and placing its views before the
Full Court of this Court.
19. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to notice the
constitutional scheme governing the establishment, jurisdiction and
supervisory powers of the High Courts. Chapter V of Part VI of the
Constitution of India provides for the establishment and jurisdiction of
the High Courts. Article 225 of the Constitution of India preserves the
jurisdiction of the existing High Courts. However, the said provision
does not have application to the present controversy since the High
Court of Delhi owes its existence to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966
enacted by Parliament.
20. Article 226 of the Constitution confers upon every High Court
the power to issue appropriate writs for enforcement of fundamental
rights as well as for any other purpose. Article 227 vests in every High
Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals
within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
Chapter VI of Part VI further provides for subordinate courts, while
Article 235 vests the control over district courts and courts
subordinate thereto in the High Court. The expression "control"
occurring in Article 235 has consistently received an expansive
interpretation and has been understood to comprehend comprehensive
administrative control over the subordinate judiciary.
21. It is not in dispute that the power to amend the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966 vests exclusively in Parliament. The High Court, in
its Short Response, has unequivocally accepted this position.
Nevertheless, the mere fact that Parliament alone possesses legislative
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 11 of 16

competence to amend the statute does not imply that another
constitutional institution is denuded of the authority to examine issues
affecting the administration of justice or to express its opinion, views
or recommendations thereon. In a constitutional democracy founded
upon separation of powers, dialogue and institutional interaction
amongst constitutional authorities cannot, by themselves, be regarded
as impermissible.
22. The judiciary constitutes one of the foundational pillars of the
constitutional framework, while Parliament represents the will of the
people through their elected representatives. In the functioning of a
constitutional democracy, exchange of views, institutional inputs and
recommendations amongst constitutional authorities have an
important role to play, particularly where the subject under
consideration directly concerns the administration of justice. Such
opinions or recommendations do not possess any binding legislative
force; they merely assist the competent authority in taking an
informed decision.
23. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that, upon receipt of a copy of
the Representation submitted by the Coordination Committee of all
District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi to the Hon'ble Union
Minister of Law and Justice, the Full Court of this Court resolved to
constitute a Committee for examining the issue in a comprehensive
manner after interacting with all concerned stakeholders. Prima facie ,
therefore, merely because the original Representation had not been
addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice would not denude the Full
Court of this Court of its authority to take cognizance of a matter
concerning the administration of justice and to constitute an internal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 12 of 16

committee for examining the same.
24. Insofar as submission (iii) is concerned, there is no dispute
whatsoever between the parties. Indeed, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the High Court has fairly accepted that the Delhi High Court
Act, 1966 can be amended only by Parliament. However, that position
does not advance the Petitioners' case. The Committee constituted by
the Full Court of this Court has neither undertaken nor claimed any
legislative function. The Committee has merely examined the issue
placed before it and submitted its Report for consideration of the Full
Court. Even if the Full Court ultimately resolves to forward its views
or recommendations to the appropriate authority, such
recommendation would, by itself, neither amends the statute nor have
the effect of altering the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court or the
District Courts. The legislative field continues to remain exclusively
within the domain of Parliament.
25. Submission (iv), namely, that any recommendation made by the
High Court would deprive the Petitioners of the opportunity to
challenge a future amendment, is equally devoid of merit. A
recommendation made by the High Court on its administrative side is
merely consultative in character and does not culminate in any
enforceable legal consequence. If, at a subsequent stage, Parliament
chooses to amend the statute, the validity of such legislation, if
otherwise amenable to judicial review, would always remain open to
challenge in accordance with law. Thus, no legal prejudice is shown to
have been caused, or likely to be caused, to the Petitioners merely
because the Full Court may consider the Committee's Report.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 13 of 16

26. Submission (v), namely, that the DHCBA ought to have been
included as a member of the Committee, also does not merit
acceptance. The material placed before this Court prima facie
establishes that the Committee invited the DHCBA to participate in
the consultative process. Communications dated 24.01.2026 and
16.04.2026 were addressed to it, and representatives of the DHCBA
were afforded an opportunity to place their views before the
Committee. The Petitioners do not dispute that their representations
and suggestions were received and considered. The Committee was
constituted as an internal mechanism by the Full Court of this Court to
assist itself in examination of the issue. The Petitioners have not been
able to point out any statutory provision, constitutional mandate or
binding rule requiring the inclusion of the DHCBA as a constituent
member of such a Committee.
27. Submission (vi), seeking a direction that a copy of the
Committee's Report be furnished to the Petitioners before it is placed
before the Full Court of this Court, also does not persuade this Court
to grant the said interim relief. The Report is intended only to assist
the Full Court of this Court in considering whether any
recommendation ought to be made to the competent authority. At this
stage, therefore, no enforceable legal right of the Petitioners can be
said to have been affected merely because a copy of the Report has not
been supplied to them.
28. The challenge founded upon the alleged violation of the
principles of natural justice is, in substance, an extension of the
aforesaid submission. The record, prima facie, demonstrate that
DHCBA, as well as other stakeholders, were specifically invited to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 14 of 16

participate in the consultative exercise and were afforded an
opportunity to place their views and suggestions before the
Committee. Some of the members also submitted written responses,
which form part of the material considered by the Committee. In these
circumstances, the plea that the consultative process stands vitiated for
breach of the principles of natural justice does not, at least at this
stage, merit acceptance.
29. The submission advanced by Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned
senior counsel, that the Petitioners being major stakeholders, ought to
be supplied with a copy of the Committee's Report before the same is
placed before the Full Court, substantially overlaps with submissions
(iv) and (vi) dealt with hereinabove. For the reasons already recorded,
this contention also does not persuade this Court to grant the interim
relief sought.
30. Consequently, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that none
of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners discloses any
legal infirmity in the decision of the Full Court to constitute the
Committee, to consult the stakeholders, and prepare the Report. At
this stage, the Petitioners have failed to establish the existence of a
prima facie case warranting interdiction of the submission of the
Report before the Full Court of this Court.
31. Apart from the Petitioners having failed to establish a prima
facie case, the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of
interdicting the outcome of the interactive consultative process
undertaken by the Committee appointed by a constitutional institution
in the discharge of its administrative functions from being placed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 15 of 16

before the Full Court of this Court. Furthermore, no irreparable loss or
prejudice is shown to be likely to ensue to the Petitioners merely
because the Report prepared by the Committee is submitted before the
Full Court of this Court or a copy of the same is not provided to the
Petitioners.
32. Accordingly, no ground is made out for grant of any interim
relief. The present Applications stand dismissed.
W.P.(C) 7752/2026
W.P.(C) 8029/2026
W.P.(C) 9165/2026
33. List for further hearing on 24.07.2026.
34. A photocopy of the order passed today be kept in the connected
matters.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

TEJAS KARIA, J.
JULY 10, 2026
s.godara/pal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:12.07.2026
14:33:00
W.P.(C) 7752/2026 and connected matters Page 16 of 16