“Allahabad High Court Clarifies Use of ‘Hon’ble’ Title: Reserved for Constitutional Functionaries, Not Civil Servants”
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has clarified the scope and applicability of the honorific “Hon’ble,” holding that the title is reserved exclusively for constitutional functionaries and is not to be used for civil servants, irrespective of their rank or position.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena observed that individuals discharging sovereign functions under the Constitution are entitled to be addressed with the honorific “Hon’ble” in all official and formal communications concerning them.
The Court emphasized that such usage is not merely a matter of courtesy but aligns with established constitutional protocol.
In its order dated April 30, the Court elaborated that the category of constitutional functionaries entitled to this honorific includes Ministers of the Union and State Governments.
Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Speaker and Chairman of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively, as well as their counterparts in State Legislative Assemblies and Councils.
Members of Parliament and State Legislatures were also expressly included within this ambit.
The Bench further noted that there may be other functionaries who, by virtue of protocol, are entitled to the same honorific, and such individuals must be addressed accordingly wherever applicable.
The clarification arose in the course of hearing a writ petition filed by accused Harshit Sharma.
Earlier, on March 31, the Court had taken exception to the omission by the Uttar Pradesh Police in not prefixing “Hon’ble” to the name of a sitting Member of Parliament and former Union Minister, Anurag Thakur, in an FIR where his name had been mentioned.
The Court had consequently sought an explanation from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh.
In response, an affidavit was filed stating that the original complaint, submitted in Hindi by the first informant, Khajan Singh, did not include the honorific before Mr. Thakur’s name.
It was further explained that the contents of the complaint were reproduced verbatim in the relevant column of the check FIR.
The informant also stated that he was unaware of the protocol governing the use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or former Union Ministers.
Taking note of these submissions, the Court reiterated that, by virtue of his status as a Member of Parliament, Anurag Thakur is indeed entitled to the use of the honorific “Hon’ble.”
The Bench clarified that the said prefix is to be applied strictly in respect of constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign powers within any of the three organs of the State—namely, the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary.
With this clarification, the Court closed the issue relating to the use of the honorific and accepted the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the State as well as the concerned respondents.
It may be noted that the principal matter before the Court pertains to a petition seeking the quashing of proceedings involving allegations of criminal intimidation and criminal breach of trust.
While the name of former Union Minister Anurag Thakur appears in the FIR, he has not been arrayed as an accused in the case.
