Lawyers practicing at the Karkardooma Court complex in Delhi continued their protest for the fifth consecutive day on Friday, opposing the Delhi High Court’s decision to shift 34 digital courtrooms handling cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act to the Rouse Avenue Court complex. The protest has now intensified into a hunger strike that began two days ago.
Advocate V.K. Singh, President of the Shahdara Bar Association (SBA), voiced the concerns of hundreds of lawyers, particularly those based in the Trans Yamuna region. “First, our labour courts were shifted, now our cheque bounce courts have been shifted… we are not fancy lawyers. How do we earn a living?” Singh said.
He added that many lawyers practicing in the area earn modest fees and depend significantly on cheque bounce litigation. “Some of us barely get Rs 20-30,000 for an entire case. Is this justice at your doorstep? Things were running smoothly… but now we are all anxious,” Singh remarked.
According to court sources, the 34 affected digital courtrooms include nine from Dwarka, seven from Tis Hazari, six from Saket, five from Karkardooma, four from Rohini, and three from Patiala House. While the judges will now sit at the Rouse Avenue Court complex near the ITO Metro Station, support staff including readers, ahlmads, and stenographers will continue to operate from their respective original court complexes.
The Delhi High Court, in a notification dated May 30, justified the decision citing “optimal utilisation of available infrastructure and resources” and “inadequate space” in existing court complexes. The notification further stated that until permanent infrastructure is available, court staff and judicial records will continue to function from their original locations. It clarified that these digital courts would remain under the administrative control of their parent districts.
However, these assurances have failed to ease the concerns of many local lawyers. Advocate Paras Jain, who practices at Karkardooma Court, expressed apprehensions regarding accessibility and procedural clarity. “Shifting of digital courts for lack of infrastructure violates the territorial jurisdiction jurisprudence,” he said. “If any litigant or advocate wants to report anything of emergent nature physically to the judge, they will not be able to communicate this… there is still confusion as to how evidence will be recorded before the judge sitting at Rouse Avenue Court,” he added.
The Coordination Committee of all District Court Bar Associations had earlier launched a protest but called off the strike on June 7 after receiving assurances from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court that digital courts would function strictly as digital platforms and that traditional proceedings would continue in local courts.
Despite this, the Shahdara Bar Association remains steadfast. In a notice issued on July 4, it resolved to abstain from work on Saturday and continue the hunger strike. The notice urged all lawyers to refrain from appearing before any court, whether physically or virtually, and warned that disciplinary action would be taken against those who failed to comply. The notice also appealed to judges not to pass any adverse orders during this period.
The issue holds significant implications for Delhi’s judicial system. Of the 15 lakh pending cases across the capital’s lower courts—comprising 2 lakh civil and 13 lakh criminal matters—approximately 4.5 lakh, or over 30%, pertain to cheque bounce claims under the NI Act.
