Administrative committee reports on pecuniary jurisdiction are consultative and do not violate natural justice if not shared.

The Coordination Committee of all District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi submitted a representation on May 23, 2025, to the Union Minister of Law and Justice (endorsed to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court) seeking an enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts

The Full Court of the Delhi High Court subsequently resolved on September 2, 2025, to constitute a Committee of seven senior Judges to examine the issue and interact with stakeholders

The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) and others participated in the consultative process but filed these writ petitions seeking an interim stay on the presentation of the Committee's Report to the Full Court and seeking a copy of said Report

1. Whether the Full Court lacked jurisdiction to constitute a Committee to examine pecuniary jurisdiction when the original representation was not directly addressed to the Chief Justice

2. Whether the High Court, on its administrative side, is prohibited from making recommendations on pecuniary jurisdiction given that legislative competence rests solely with Parliament

3. Whether the non-supply of the Committee’s Report to stakeholders prior to its placement before the Full Court violates the principles of natural justice

4. Whether the petitioners satisfied the requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for grant of interim relief

The Court applied the constitutional scheme of judicial administration under Article 227 (power of superintendence) and Article 235 (administrative control over subordinate courts) of the Constitution of India

Rule 2, Part A, Chapter IX, Volume V of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, regarding the High Court’s competence to make recommendations on the administration of justice

Under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, exclusive legislative competence to amend pecuniary jurisdiction lies with Parliament

The Court applied the tripartite test for interim injunctions: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

The Court reasoned that while Parliament alone can amend the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, this does not denude a constitutional institution like the High Court of the authority to express opinions or recommendations on matters affecting the administration of justice

The Committee’s Report is merely an internal consultative document and does not possess binding legislative force; therefore, it does not infringe upon the petitioners' legal rights or the legislative domain

The Court found that natural justice was satisfied as the DHCBA was invited to, and did participate in, multiple consultative meetings

The Court noted that litigants currently face inconvenience and high costs because modest local property disputes often exceed the existing Rs. 2 crore threshold, requiring them to approach the High Court instead of local District Courts

No legal prejudice is caused by the administrative consideration of a report that may or may not lead to a legislative proposal

The Court held that the High Court is competent to take cognizance of matters concerning justice administration regardless of to whom the initial representation was addressed

The prayer to restrain the submission of the Report was rejected as the recommendations are merely consultative, and any subsequent Parliamentary amendment would be subject to judicial review at the appropriate stage

The matter is listed for further hearing on July 24, 2026