New DelhiIn its petition, the DHCBA contended that determining or enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts is an exclusive legislative function vested in Parliament under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. (Representative photo)The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) moved the Delhi High Court, challenging the full court’s decision to constitute a committee to decide on increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of trial courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.The petition, filed by the DHCBA on Tuesday, a day after it abstained from work in protest against the high court taking cognisance of a proposal to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore, was listed before a bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Tejas Karia on Tuesday. However, the matter was simply adjourned until Friday.In its petition, the DHCBA contended that determining or enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of courts is an exclusive legislative function vested in Parliament under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. It argued that the high court lacks the jurisdiction, constitutional authority, or legislative mandate to initiate, examine, or deliberate upon any amendment to a parliamentary enactment.“The impugned actions run contrary to the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. It is humbly and respectfully submitted that there is an urgent need for judicial intervention to prevent this Hon’ble High Court from overstepping its constitutional boundaries,” the petition stated.The proposal to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of district courts stems from a May 23, 2025, letter from the Coordination Committee of the All District Courts Bar Association to the Union law ministry, seeking an increase in jurisdiction from ₹2 crore to ₹20 crore.Subsequently, during a full court meeting on September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court decided to constitute a committee to consult stakeholders, examine the issue and submit recommendations. A six-judge committee comprising justices V Kameswar Rao, NW Sambre, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Vivek Chaudhary, Prathiba M Singh and Navin Chawla was constituted for this purpose.Opposing the move, the DHCBA executive committee on May 22 decided to abstain from work and issued a letter on May 23 appointing proxy counsels across courts.In a communication, the DHCBA sought disclosure of documents, including agenda notes, the Chief Justice’s recommendations, and resolutions constituting the committee. In a subsequent letter on Friday, it urged that proceedings before the committee be kept in abeyance, contending that the full court had taken cognisance of a letter addressed to the law ministry despite no request or process having been initiated by the Centre.