HC: Constitutional functionaries entitled to ‘Hon’ble’ honorific

The Allahabad high court has held that constitutional functionaries such as MPs, judges and ministers are entitled to the honorific ‘Hon’ble’.

However, the court clarified that a civil servant, regardless of rank, is not entitled to use this specific honorific.

A division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena further observed that constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions must be addressed as ‘Hon’ble’ in every communication pertaining to them.

“The Ministers of the central and state Governments, the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Speaker, the 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,” the high court observed in its order dated April 30.

The court added that there could be other similar functionaries who, according to protocol, are entitled to the honorific, and whoever is so entitled must be addressed accordingly.

Earlier, while hearing this writ petition filed by Harshit Sharma and two others seeking quashing of an FIR registered against them at Highway police station, Mathura, the high court had on March 31 taken exception to the UP Police having failed to append ‘Hon’ble’ before the name of an MP and former Union minister, whose name was mentioned in the FIR. The court had then sought an explanation from the additional chief secretary (home), Uttar Pradesh.

In response to the April 30 order, the court was informed through an affidavit that the typed Hindi complaint submitted by the first informant, Khajan Singh, did not refer to the MP as ‘Hon’ble’, and the same was reproduced verbatim in column 12 of the check FIR. The informant claimed that he was unaware of the protocol regarding the use of honorifics for MPs or former Union ministers.

The court observed that the honorific ‘Hon’ble’ is to be used only for constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions of any of the three organs of government.

Closing this specific part of the dispute, the high court accepted the counter-affidavits filed by the state and the respondent counsel on record.

The case before the high court is a plea seeking quashing of proceedings related to offences of criminal intimidation and criminal breach of trust. The former Union minister’s name was mentioned in the FIR, though he was not named as an accused.