New Delhi: Two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court pulling up the state police machinery indicate the court’s preference for using ‘Hon’ble’ before mentioning a minister’s name in an FIR. But that’s not the case for civil servants, though. And lawyers in the Allahabad High Court have raised concerns of the impact on equality before law.
This week, the Allahabad HC sought a reply from the additional chief secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government for not describing a Union minister (BJP’s Anurag Thakur) with the “usual honorific of Hon’ble” in an FIR.
An Allahabad HC division bench of justices Tarun Saxena and J. Munir in an order dated 31 March directed the SP to file a personal affidavit before the court within a week on “why in the FIR the Hon’ble Union Minister, whose name figures, has not been described with the usual honorific of Hon’ble and at one point, referred to just by his name without even appending a Mr?”
“Even if in the written report, the Hon’ble Minister was inappropriately described by the first informant (while writing the FIR)… it was the duty of the police to have abided by the protocol by inserting the honorific, maybe in brackets,” the court said.
The court was dealing with a petition to quash an FIR registered in Mathura against individuals accused of collecting Rs 80 lakh by falsely claiming a close association with Union Minister Anurag Thakur to secure government jobs. Although the minister was not an accused in the matter, the complainant had mentioned his name in the report.
But in December 2025, a different division bench of the same court had pulled up police officials for using the prefix ‘Hon’ble’ when referring to the commissioner in an affidavit. The court had then said it was a “subtle but certain way to diminish the status of constitutional authorities and courts”.
Also, drawing a parallel between bureaucrats and ministers, the court had said that such prefixes can only be used for ministers and sovereign functionaries and the same “does not hold good” for bureaucrats or officials of the state government.
Seeking the principal secretary’s reply on protocol for ‘Hon’ble’ to be affixed to names of officials, the Allahabad HC bench said: “There is a recent trend where the ranks of various state officials from the lowest to the highest levels are being preceded with ‘Hon’ble’ in correspondence as well as orders.”
Equality before law
A senior police official from UP confirmed that using such prefixes when naming ministers was not a practice and definitely not a trend.
Noting that an FIR is a “verbatim reproduction” of the complainant’s account, he said an officer cannot prefix or suffix a single word, even if it is grammatically incorrect.
Weighing in on the debate, Allahabad HC advocate Areeb Uddin Ahmed warned against “legal language recreating social hierarchy”.
“Using ‘Hon’ble’ for an accused minister in an FIR or complaint is legally inappropriate and constitutionally offensive. It creates a two-tier system even at the stage of accusation. If the police or the complainant feel compelled to use ‘Hon’ble’ for a sitting minister, it suggests either fear or favour, and undermines the neutrality of the criminal justice system,” advocate Ahmed told ThePrint.
Noting that in a complaint or FIR, every accused is equal before the law, he added, “No ‘Hon’ble’ for a minister, no ‘Mr’ required for anyone. All accused persons should be treated equally, because everyone is equal before the law (Article 14).”
Omar Zamin, also a lawyer in the Allahabad High Court, criticised the practice of courts asking for a prefix. Speaking to ThePrint, he said that using ‘Hon’ble’ is “injustice to someone making the complaint”.
He also explained that whenever an FIR is filed, any person apprehended for breaking the law, regardless of their office or position, must be treated equally, by virtue of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.
“The same isn’t used for a common dacoit”, he said, explaining how this practice could “prejudice a trial”.
“A prejudice is created in the mind of the investigating officer” when s/he sees ‘Hon’ble’ before an accused’s name in the investigation, he said.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: 8,630 complaints filed against sitting judges in past decade, data shows post-pandemic surge