New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has in a rather unusual order stated that constitutional functionaries like judges, ministers and MPs, who are entitled to the “Honourable” prefix before their names, must be addressed likewise.
A two-judge bench of Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena made this observation in its 30 April order after taking note of an affidavit where the Uttar Pradesh Police failed to mention the prefix “Honourable” before Union Minister Anurag Thakur’s name in an FIR.
“It is to be noted that the honorific “Hon’ble” is to be appended to the names of constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions of any of the three organs of the government,” the court remarked, referring to the judiciary, executive and the legislature.
It further emphasised that ministers of the central and state governments, along with the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, must be addressed using this honorific.
The court also made clear that the “Speaker, chairman of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha respectively and likewise of the state legislative assemblies, the Members of Parliament and the state legislative assemblies are entitled to the use of this honorific”.
There could be other similar functionaries who, according to the protocol, are entitled to such titles, the court said while adding that whosoever is entitled to the use of this honorific has to be addressed likewise.
In the same breath, the court carved out an exception for civil servants, who it clarified, do not have to be addressed in the similar fashion, irrespective of their seniority.
Interestingly, the court made it clear that even in cases where there is “personal disgruntlement or familiarity with a family member, who is entitled to an honorific”, the sovereign functionary of the government is entitled to the honorific, and cannot be referred to without it.
Although Anurag Thakur was not an accused in the current case, his name was mentioned in the FIR. It broadly dealt with offences like criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation, and Thakur had approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the FIR against him.
The case against Harshit Sharma, the main accused, arose after he allegedly took Rs 80 lakh from a man, while promising to get him a job, and not delivering the same. Subsequently, Sharma was alleged to have threatened to kill the complainant.
The court will hear the case again on 11 May.
What prompted the ‘honourable’ clarification
The court took note of the absence of the prefix “Honourable” before Union Minister Anurag Thakur’s name after it saw an affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh government’s additional chief secretary.
One of the paragraphs in the affidavit referred to a complaint which was typed in Hindi, and on the basis of which the FIR was registered in the current case.
Subsequently, directions were issued to the Mathura Senior Superintendent of Police in April to initiate a preliminary inquiry about the name and honorific for the former Union minister.
The first informant in this case, Khajan Singh, had stated before the court that he was unaware of the protocol regarding use of honorifics for MPs or former Union ministers, the court noted while adding that Thakur “is an Hon’ble Member of Parliament and is entitled to the honorific”.
Is this the first time?
On 23 September last year, an Allahabad HC bench of Justice JJ Munir, who also happens to be on the bench in the current case, took note of the official correspondences, where differently-ranked state government officials were being referred to with “Honourable” before their names.
The judge was prompted to make this remark after noting that the divisional commissioner of Kanpur has been referred to by the Etawah collector as “Honourable Commissioner”.
Subsequently, the court had directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, UP, to apprise it about “any protocol about officials of the State who are entitled to prefix or have the word “Honourable” prefixed along with their designations or names”.
“This court is well aware that the word “Honourable” is to be certainly prefixed in the case of Hon’ble Ministers and other sovereign functionaries, but we are not aware if the same holds good for Secretaries serving the State Government,” the single-judge bench noted while directing the UP government to come back with a protocol on what officials are entitled to the honorific.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Supreme Court lets BJP leaders Parvesh Verma and Anurag Thakur off the hook in 2020 hate speech case