Skip to main content

How Do We Earn a Living?’: Delhi Lawyers Protest Transfer of Cheque Bounce Courts


New Delhi, July 2025
Tension is simmering in the corridors of Delhi's district courts as hundreds of lawyers have taken to protest against the recent decision by the Delhi High Court to transfer cheque bounce (Section 138 NI Act) cases from district courts to a centralized special court at Rouse Avenue.

With placards in hand reading “How Do We Earn a Living?” and “Don’t Snatch Our Bread and Butter,” lawyers from all major bar associations—including Tis Hazari, Saket, Karkardooma, and Dwarka courts—gathered outside the court premises, staging peaceful dharnas and processions. The move, they say, directly impacts their daily practice and livelihood.

The Heart of the Matter: What’s the Issue?

In a notification issued recently, the Delhi High Court decided that all cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act—relating to dishonoured cheques—will now be heard only at the Rouse Avenue Court, which is centrally located. The idea behind this is to create a specialized court for faster and more efficient disposal of such cases.

But for local lawyers practicing at district levels, this has triggered a storm.

“These cases are our daily bread. Most junior lawyers rely heavily on cheque bounce matters to earn and gain court experience. If everything shifts to one court, what happens to lawyers across the city?” said Advocate Ramesh Sharma, a senior lawyer at Karkardooma Court.

Why Are Lawyers Upset?

Lawyers argue the transfer will lead to:

  • Loss of Income: Many small-scale and junior lawyers rely on Section 138 cases for a steady stream of work.
  • Overburdening One Court: Centralizing all matters could result in overcrowding and delays instead of speedy disposal.
  • Access Issues for Litigants: People from remote parts of Delhi may find it hard to travel to Rouse Avenue regularly for their hearings.
  • Impact on Local Bar Associations: The shift could weaken the importance of district courts and local bars.

“We are not against judicial reform, but this has been done without any consultation with us. The voices of the grassroots lawyers are being ignored,” said Advocate Priya Mehta from Saket Bar Association.

Bar Associations Demand Immediate Rollback

In response to the notification, several Bar Associations have passed resolutions calling for an immediate rollback of the transfer. Many have also threatened to escalate the protest and go on indefinite strike if the decision is not reconsidered.

The Delhi Bar Council has also taken cognizance of the matter and urged the High Court to engage in a dialogue with the representatives of the lawyers' bodies.

High Court’s Stand

The Delhi High Court maintains that the move is aimed at speedy justice and consistency in orders related to cheque bounce matters. The Rouse Avenue Court, being a centralized modern complex, is well-equipped to handle the influx, said court sources.

However, lawyers insist reforms should not come at the cost of “justice for the legal fraternity.”

: Section 138 NI Act (Cheque Bounce Cases)

  • Governs the punishment when a cheque is dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
  • Punishable with up to 2 years’ imprisonment or fine or both.
  • Common and frequent case in Indian courts, especially between individuals, traders, and small businesses.

The battle is far from over. As Delhi’s lawyers gear up for a longer fight, the larger debate on reform versus livelihood continues in India’s legal system.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

UPSI Syllabus 2025 & Exam pattern 2025

UP SI 2025 Exam Pattern Subject Questions Marks General Hindi 40 100 Law/Constitution & General Knowledge 40 100 Numerical & Mental Ability Test 40 100 Mental Aptitude/Intelligence/Reasoning 40 100 Total 160 400 Exam Mode : Online (CBT) Duration : 2 hours (120 minutes) Negative Marking : No Qualifying Marks : Minimum 35% in each subject and 50% overall Subject-Wise Syllabus 1. General Hindi समास, संधि, वाक्यांश के लिए एक शब्द पर्यायवाची, विलोम शब्द मुहावरे और लोकोक्तियाँ रस, अलंकार, छंद वाक्य संशोधन, वर्तनी अपठित गद्यांश (Comprehension) हिंदी साहित्य के प्रमुख लेखक और रचनाएँ 2. Law, Constitution & General Knowledge A. General Knowledge भारत का इतिहास और स्वतंत्रता संग्राम भूगोल (भारत और विश्व) विज्ञान और तकनीक करेंट अफेयर्स पुरस्कार, किताबें और लेखक महत्वपूर्ण राष्ट्रीय/अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संगठन खेलकूद, राजनीति, अर्थव्यवस्था B. Indian Constitution & Law संविधान की विशेषताएँ मौलिक अधिकार और कर्तव...

Arrest under BNSS 2023: Grounds, Sections, and Case Laws

Bare act provision  Arrest by private person [section 40] Section 40 lays down the circumstances  when a private person can arrest and procedure on such arrest Circumstances in which a private person can arrest: Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested who in the presence of private person. i) commits a non - bailable and           cognizable offence. ii) Any proclaimed offender. 2: Arrest by magistrate section 41 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), enacted to replace the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), brings a renewed focus on balancing citizen rights and policing powers . Arrest, being a powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement, is rightly placed under scrutiny in BNSS 2023. Let’s break down what "arrest" means under this new law, the grounds under which it can occur, and the protective safeguards embedded within. What is Arrest Arrest is the legal restraint of a person’s libe...

Smith v Hughes (1959): A Landmark Case on Interpreting the Law

Smith v Hughes (1959): Introduction The case of Smith v Hughes (1959) is one of the most iconic examples in English law that demonstrates the Mischief Rule of statutory interpretation. At first glance, it may seem like a simple case involving a street solicitor (a prostitute), but it ended up clarifying how judges should interpret the true purpose of a law. Facts of the Case Mrs. Smith, the defendant, was a prostitute. However, unlike many others, she wasn’t soliciting from the street. Instead, she operated from inside her apartment in London. She would call out or attract clients through her window or by tapping on the glass, facing the public street below. She was charged under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 , which says: “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.” Now here's the twist: Smith argued she wasn’t in the street , so she claimed the law didn’t apply to her ...