New DelhiA bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia observed that while the power to recommend an enhancement in pecuniary jurisdiction lies “exclusively” with the high court, it cannot direct Parliament to implement or give effect to such a recommendation. (Representative photo)The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the maintainability of a petition seeking directions to the Centre to notify its 2022 recommendation to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil judges in Delhi district courts from ₹3 lakh to ₹20 lakh.A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia observed that while the power to recommend an enhancement in pecuniary jurisdiction lies “exclusively” with the high court, it cannot direct Parliament to implement or give effect to such a recommendation.“Why should your petition be entertained at all? You’re asking us to issue a direction to the legislature. Can we do that? In the legislative processes, there are so many processes done, recommendations are made, but can we issue directions? Can we issue such a direction to the Parliament? Making a recommendation lies exclusively in our domain. It’s discharge of our administrative duties; how can you file such a petition? The maintainability of the petition is at stake,” the bench said to petitioner lawyer Amit Sahani.The observations by the court came amid the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) continuing its abstention from judicial work over the Delhi High Court’s support for enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Delhi’s district courts from ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore.On Wednesday, Sahani urged the court to direct the Centre and Delhi government to file an updated status report on the action, following the high court’s recommendation to enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of civil judges. Sahani submitted that although the Delhi High Court, in a full court meeting held in February 2022, recommended increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction, the Centre, in an affidavit filed on February 17, 2025, stated that the proposal was under active consideration and the Delhi government was also impleaded as a party.He pointed out that the matter had not been listed for hearing since February 19, 2025.Sahani said that over four years had elapsed since the recommendation was made, and thus, the court should direct the Centre and the Delhi government to disclose the current status and progress of the proposal.​​The DHCBA’s abstention from work can be traced to 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.In May, the DHCBA moved the high court, challenging the full court’s September 2025 decision to constitute the committee and, in the interim, sought a stay of the presentation of the pecuniary jurisdiction report prepared by the committee before the full court during the pendency of its petition.The DHCBA contends that the full court lacked jurisdiction to constitute the committee, and if the full court would now forward its recommendation on the issue to the competent authority, it would be deprived of the opportunity to challenge the proposed amendment to the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.The high court, however, in an order on July that was uploaded on Sunday, dismissed the DHCBA’s application for a stay on the presentation of the committee’s pecuniary jurisdiction report, observing that the recommendations by themselves would neither amend the law nor alter the existing jurisdiction of any court. It observed that the exercise undertaken by the committee was confined only to examining the issue and placing its views before the full court.