Delhi: Court committee condemns HC bar association's opposition to enhance pecuniary limit

The next day, the committee issued a resolution strongly condemning the associations opposition as wholly unjustified, ill-founded, regressive, and contrary to the larger public interest, litigant interest, and the constitutional objective of ensuring timely, affordable, and accessible justice. It said the existing pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs 2 crore was grossly unrealistic and economically obsolete, particularly in view of the exponential rise in property valuations over the last decade.

The committee here has condemned a resolution of the Delhi High Court Bar Association opposing any initiative to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts. On January 24, the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations was asked to attend a meeting on January 30 with the committee of Delhi High Court judges, which is considering the matter regarding the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from the existing Rs 2 crore to a minimum of Rs 20 crore. In May last year, the committee had urged Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal to enhance the pecuniary limits of all district courts in the national capital, citing growing inflation. On Wednesday, however, the high court bar association passed a resolution opposing the proposed enhancement. The next day, the committee issued a resolution ''strongly condemning'' the association's opposition as ''wholly unjustified, ill-founded, regressive, and contrary to the larger public interest, litigant interest, and the constitutional objective of ensuring timely, affordable, and accessible justice.'' It said the existing pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs 2 crore was grossly unrealistic and economically obsolete, particularly in view of the exponential rise in property valuations over the last decade. ''Continuance of such an outdated limit has resulted in an avoidable and disproportionate burden on the original side of the Delhi High Court, to the direct detriment of litigants,'' the committee's resolution read. It reiterated its demand for the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction and called upon the high court association to withdraw, reconsider, or modify its opposition. Nagendra Kumar, the committee's convenor, said, ''The need to increase pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi district courts is for the welfare of common litigants who are being deprived because of the high cost of litigation on the one hand, and delay in justice delivery.'' He said the enhancement was necessary because litigation at the high court is not only costly but also much delayed. ''It is even burdensome for litigants to travel to the Delhi High Court. The litigants feel much more comfortable appearing before district courts. The number of judges in district courts is more than 200, which makes adjudication expeditious,'' Kumar said. Tarun Rana, secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association, said that the proposed enhancement would result in speedy justice and that it would provide ''justice at the doorstep'' to the public. Secretary General of the Coordination Committee, Karan Veer Tyagi, said that increasing the limit of district courts is in favour of the litigants as they are more geographically accessible to them. ''The stand adopted by the DHCBA is not only contrary to national judicial reform objectives but also inconsistent with the constitutional vision of decentralised, efficient, and accessible justice delivery,'' he said.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)