The peculiar jurisdiction of Delhi High Court : Why the increase to Rs. 10 Crore?

The Delhi High Court Bar Association abstained from work on 14 and 15 July. While the judges held court and matters listed before them were called, lawyers, by and large, did not appear. The abstention was in response to the reported recommendation of the Full Court of the Delhi High Court to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s District Courts from Rs. 2 Crore to Rs. 10 Crore. If implemented, the corresponding effect would be to raise the pecuniary threshold for invoking the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court from more than Rs. 2 crore to more than Rs. 10 crore.

If Parliament acts on the recommendation and amends Section 5(2) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the change could, according to the Bar Association, transfer almost 70% of the Original Side’s docket to the District Court. In 2015, when the Parliament raised the pecuniary threshold for invoking the Original Side from Rs. 20 Lakh to Rs. 2 Crore, the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had transferred to the District Court pending cases falling below the revised threshold. Thus, litigants who initiated suits in High Court could be compelled to pursue the rest of the proceedings in District Courts even after pleadings, interlocutory proceedings and evidence have progressed substantially. Further institution of proceedings before the Original Side would also substantially reduce, as litigants may not be able to value their suit at upwards of Rs. 10 Crore.  

Given the sale of these ramifications, it is necessary to examine the factors which informed the Full Court’s recommendation – and in the absence of publicly available reasons, the factors that ought to have informed it.  This is especially because at this stage, it unclear why the Full Court has recommended a revision to 10 Crore and not to 4 or 5 or 20 Crores.

By way of background, only six High Courts in the country have ordinary original civil jurisdiction. After independence, the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts inherited in terms of Article 225 of the Constitution, their original civil jurisdiction from the Letter Patent that established them. Unlike Delhi, their ordinary original jurisdiction is territorially confined to specified local limits within Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai.

Delhi did not have a High Court after independence. A Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court functioned in Delhi and dealt with cases which arose in the Union Territory. The Delhi High Court was established by the Parliament by enacting Delhi High Court, 1966. Section 5(2) of that Act conferred upon Delhi High Court ordinary original civil ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every suit whose value exceed Rs. 25,000/. It is statutory threshold the Parliament has raised from time to time.  

While the debates preceding the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 do not provide much guidance on why Delhi High Court was conferred with an original civil jurisdiction, let alone a rationale for why Rs. 25,000, subsequent enhancements were accompanied by discernible institutional reasons. When the Amendment Act of 2003 was introduced, the then Law Minister had stated that there were 1.5 Lakh cases pending in the High Court while only 18,387 were pending before the courts of District Judge and Additional District Judge. Therefore, it was likely that disposal rate would increase before the District Judges. Although the comparison seems inapposite cases pending before the High Court across civil, writ and criminal jurisdictions were being compared with civil cases pending in district courts. By 2014–15, the justification had become broader. The Parliamentary Standing Committee observed that Delhi’s circle rates and property values had increased several-fold since 2003 and considered revision of the threshold overdue in view of the “devaluation of currency” and the rise in property prices. It also anticipated that 12,211 pending High Court cases would be distributed among Delhi’s eleven judicial districts, and facilitate speedier disposal.

The object sought to be achieved by the present recommendation, however, remains unclear. The process began with the Coordination Committee of the District Court Bar Associations through its letter to the Minister of State for Law sought enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction from 2 Crore to 20 Crore. The Full Court has accepted the premise that an enhancement is required, but has reportedly recommended a threshold of ₹10 crore instead. In that sense, it has partly accepted the Coordination Committee’s proposal. But it has not explained the problem revised threshold is intended to solve or the basis on which ₹10 crore was selected. Is the recommendation meant to – a) account for inflation and the increase in property values or b) to reduce the High Court’s pendency or c) to advance the principled view that ordinary civil suits should ordinarily be tried by the District Judiciary?

The opacity surrounding the recommendation makes it difficult to identify the goalpost. The history revisions may support the conclusion that the Rs. 2 crore requires reconsideration. It does not, however, explain why Rs.10 crore is the appropriate replacement. The Division Bench has observed that property prices in Delhi have risen substantially and that even disputes concerning relatively modest properties may now cross the existing threshold. That circumstance may again demonstrate why Rs. 2 crore is not a reliable court. By itself, however, it does not justify excluding the entire category of suits valued between Rs. 2 crore and Rs. 10 crore from direct institution before the High Court. A fivefold increase affects not merely the forum in which future suits will be instituted, but potentially the course of a substantial number of pending proceedings. Such a change requires an articulation of its objective and a relationship between that objective and the figure of Rs. 10 crore. One hopes this would happen when this recommendation is placed before the Parliament.