Intellectual property forms the economic infrastructure of the world today. As a soft asset it determines the wealth of a nation. A recent study has revealed that IP and IP driven industries contribute more than US$ 7.8 trillion to the US economy, which translates to more than 40% of its GDP and over 47.2 million jobs. Similarly, in Europe these figures are Euro 7.7 trillion dollars, which is nearly half the GDP of the EU and over 65 million jobs. WIPO’s 2026 world intangible investment data show intangible investments (largely IP and IP-adjacent assets — software, R&D, brand equity, databases) crossed $10 trillion in 2025 and now make up 12.8% of GDP across sampled economies, edging past tangible capital investment (11.8%) for the first time.

The very creation of such valuable assets, being entirely intangible in nature, is highly dependent upon proper enforcement, and it is the efficiency of the enforcement mechanism that determines which country will produce these assets in the first place, and whether owners of these assets will risk transfer of these assets from their home country to another. It affects direct foreign investment and technology transfer, with owners showing reluctance to bring advanced manufacturing, R&D facilities, or licensed technology into a country where their patents or trademarks are not reliably enforced.

It is in this context that the Delhi High Court and its IP Division hold a beacon of hope by consistently passing landmark judgements and decisions. The Division started to receive accolades in the very first year of its establishment. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the then Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and now a Supreme Court Judge, had this to say in his statement:

Indeed, the prophecy of Justice Sharma came to fruition, and it can be safely stated that the Delhi High Court IP Division has shaped the legal landscape of IP law in India, giving hope to thousands of entrepreneurs and IP creators. Over the years, the Court has passed several landmark decisions ranging from issues involving standard essential patents in the field of telecommunications to passing dynamic blocking injunction orders in cases involving online piracy, intermediary liability issues for online market places, keyword advertising, AI, deepfakes, and protection of personality rights. All these are complex issues debated and discussed globally, that the Delhi High Court deals with almost on a routine basis. Judgements of the Court are now often cited in leading global publications and indeed as precedents in other jurisdictions of the world.

This reputation of the Court is clearly not built overnight, but has taken painstaking efforts on behalf of both the Bar and the Bench and other stakeholders, in particular the litigants. It therefore comes as a rude shock that the Full Court of the Delhi High Court has unilaterally decided to give an opinion to the legislature to increase the jurisdiction of the Court from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 10 crores.

What does this mean in layman terms? It means that if this recommendation is accepted, the basic Court Fee required to file a fresh case in the Court would be an ad valorem fee of Rs. 10 lacs. This would mean that the cost of litigation in the Delhi High Court, a Court known for its specialization in IP law, would be increased by a princely sum of Rs. 8 lacs. This enhancement will straight away impact the creators of IP in India which are largely the MSME industries and individual creators such as music directors, authors, sculptors. This enhancement would put these stake holders who contribute to the Indian economy through the sweat of their brow, out of reckoning. The Delhi High Court enforcement mechanism would henceforth be pricier, and the Court more elitist, catering to only those who can afford the additional expense.

The logic behind this hike is still a mystery. Though the recommendations of the Bar were sought by a committee of 6 Justices, how those recommendations were dealt with in its final report, the Bar is told, is for the exclusive consumption of the Full Court. Indeed, the recommendations were put up before the Full Court and an opinion is scheduled to be issued to the Government suggesting such an enhancement. Indeed, the minutes to this effect are being signed by members of the Full Court, as we speak or should I say, as I write this article. According to the current state of knowledge, the recommendations of the Committee were not unanimous, and two reports were submitted to the Full Court, one suggesting the enhancement and the other strongly opposing it.

Why would such an opinion be extremely harmful to the institution called the Delhi High Court? At the very outset, it would deny an entry to those IP holders who cannot afford this Court fee. Perhaps, these doors will now only be open to those multi-national corporations who can afford this somewhat prohibitive amount. What is of significance is that whilst cases in the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts and indeed the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla can be filed at much lower Court fees, the specialist Delhi High Court will only come at a premium.

This is bound to the impact not just the IP owners but also the younger members of the Bar who will now be compelled to pack their bags and establish practice in the 11 districts of Delhi, traveling from Saket to Karkardooma, Tis Hazari to Rohini.

The recent Tribunal Reforms Act transferred the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Appellant Board exclusively to the Delhi High Court. These cases, which are intertwined with IP civil suits, will continue with the High Court whilst the suits may now be tried in the District Courts. This will mean that a litigant would now have to engage multiple lawyers in the High Court and the District Court.

There are several other procedural difficulties that litigants will face including the lack of a Registry in the District Courts to tackle issues such as formation of confidentiality clubs for sharing of highly sensitive trade secrets.

One can only hope that these and other issues will be debated before any irreversible decisions are taken. The ongoing strike by the Delhi High Court Bar is just one effort towards this goal for betterment of an institution we have all contributed to over the past several decades, and to protect the litigants as well as the young Bar members.

*Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate, Delhi High Court