After meeting Law Minister, Delhi HC lawyers call off strike over jurisdiction concerns

New DelhiJul 16, 2026 10:57 PM IST Several senior advocates also have flagged a lack of in-depth consultation process, from various stakeholders in the Bar, including IP-specific concerns, even as the DHCBA was invited to provide its opinion which it had provided in writing to the full court. The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) on Thursday suspended its call for abstention from work even as several lawyers, predominantly practicing intellectual property (IP) law, continued to flag concerns over the proposed enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts from the present Rs 2 crore to Rs 10 crore. Pecuniary jurisdiction refers to the limit on the authority of a court to hear a case based on the monetary value of the matter in dispute. It ensures that a court that is lower in a hierarchy of courts cannot take up a case involving a property of value exceeding a specified ceiling or cap.Lawyers from the High Court had abstained from appearing before courts for three consecutive days since July 14. The thaw in the abstention from work comes after the members of the association met Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Thursday. The DHCBA was also called upon and assured by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya that their concerns, submitted as a representation, shall be considered. Apart from flagging multiplicity of forums while pursuing litigation on the IP side if the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts are increased, lawyers are also flagging the absence of specific data on IP-related litigation to justify the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. Senior advocate Swathi Sukumar, while speaking with reporters, emphasised that the justification for the hike in the pecuniary jurisdiction is “arbitrary” in the absence of data assessing the appreciation in the intellectual property value and their suits which come to courts, unlike commercial matters involving real estate disputes compared to earlier. Lawyers are also apprehensive that with an enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction in district courts, dealing with IP-related matters can create “practical asymmetry in access to IP enforcement across jurisdictions” of High Court and district courts in Delhi. Senior advocate J Sai Deepak told the mediapersons that the report submitted by the High Court of its proposal to the government has not been shared with the Bar. “The opinion of the full court with dissent from several judges, we have not got access to. So before the opinion is handed over to the government, we should at least have consideration of the report and a specific reconsideration of the points dissented over,” he said.Story continues below this ad Several senior advocates also have flagged a lack of in-depth consultation process, from various stakeholders in the Bar, including IP-specific concerns, even as the DHCBA was invited to provide its opinion which it had provided in writing to the full court. © The Indian Express Pvt Ltd Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segrega