It is proposed that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court be increased from the current threshold of ₹2 crore to ₹10 crore. This proposal has found strong objection from the commercial bar of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, including the Intellectual Property Bar of the Delhi High Court.
The Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA), an association of intellectual property professionals, in response to the said proposal has submitted a detailed representation, urging that intellectual property disputes be expressly excluded from any such enhancement or alternatively subject IP disputes to a distinct pecuniary framework with rationalised or capped court fees, recognising the unique nature of IP rights and remedies. The representation contends that applying the proposed threshold to IP disputes would undermine specialised adjudication, increase litigation costs and fragment the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) was the first to challenge the Full Court Resolution dated 2 September 2025 and the constitution of the Judges’ Committee constituted to examine the proposal. It was followed by the Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA), which filed a writ petition contending that neither the Delhi High Court Act nor any other statute empowers the Full Court or its Committee to initiate or recommend changes to the High Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. APAA also warned that the proposal would shift over 99% of intellectual property suits to district courts lacking comparable specialised infrastructure and sought directions that IP matters continue before the Delhi High Court irrespective of pecuniary value.
Subsequently, the International Trademark Association (INTA) also approached the Delhi High Court with a similar challenge. INTA contends that the proposed enhancement would dismantle the specialised ecosystem developed by the Delhi High Court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD), result in the transfer of nearly 99% of pending IP suits to district courts, and lead to fragmented proceedings, particularly in trademark litigation where infringement suits and validity or rectification proceedings would be heard by different forums. The association has also sought a direction that any future enhancement in pecuniary jurisdiction should expressly carve out intellectual property disputes.
In its representation, IPAA submitted that IP litigation is fundamentally distinct from conventional commercial disputes. It argued that such cases are primarily enforcement actions seeking urgent injunctive relief rather than monetary recovery, making the valuation of claims an unreliable basis for determining jurisdiction. The Association warned that a ₹10 crore threshold, coupled with significantly higher court fees, would disproportionately affect startups, MSMEs, innovators, creators and technology companies seeking timely protection of their intellectual property rights.
The Association emphasised that the Delhi High Court’s Intellectual Property Division has evolved into India’s leading specialised forum for patent, trademark, copyright, design, SEP/FRAND and technology-related disputes through dedicated procedural rules and judicial expertise. It argued that this institutional framework cannot presently be replicated across district courts and that transferring the bulk of IP litigation would undermine consistency and efficiency in adjudication.
IPAA further submitted that the proposal is inconsistent with recent legislative developments, including the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the establishment of specialised Intellectual Property Divisions in High Courts. It argued that transferring infringement suits to district courts while validity, rectification and appellate proceedings continue before the High Court would create parallel proceedings, encourage forum shopping and delay enforcement.
The representation also highlighted the financial burden likely to arise from the proposal, pointing out that Delhi could become one of the costliest jurisdictions for instituting commercial and intellectual property suits because of the absence of a statutory cap on court fees comparable to those available in jurisdictions such as Bombay and Calcutta. According to the Association, this could discourage litigants from approaching the Delhi High Court despite its established expertise in IP adjudication.
Accordingly, IPAA has urged that intellectual property disputes be expressly carved out from any enhancement of the Delhi High Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction. In the alternative, it has recommended a separate pecuniary framework with rationalised court fees for IP litigation, maintaining that specialised adjudication before the Intellectual Property Division is essential to protect innovation, ensure consistency in judicial outcomes and preserve India’s position as a leading intellectual property jurisdiction