In the case titled Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Case No. WRIT – A No. 18956 of 2022), the petitioners, represented by Advocates Aditya Prakash Verma and Shailesh Verma, sought relief against the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.). The case revolves around certain administrative and procedural issues raised by the petitioners against the State, which led to a legal battle that was brought before the Allahabad High Court.
Important Legal Issues Involved:
One of the primary issues brought to light during the proceedings was the incorrect protocol followed by government officials in referring to retired judges. This issue, though seemingly procedural, touches upon the respect and dignity afforded to members of the judiciary, both serving and retired. The improper reference to a retired judge in official documents sparked a significant observation by the court regarding the maintenance of proper judicial decorum.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The judgment was delivered by Justice J.J. Munir of the Allahabad High Court on August 13, 2024. During the hearing, personal affidavits were filed by senior officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Director General of Police, and the Superintendent of Police, Basti. These affidavits were reviewed and taken on record by the court.
A critical observation made by Justice Munir was the incorrect reference to retired Justice A.N. Mittal, who was mistakenly named as “Hon’ble Justice Shri J.N. Mittal” in the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). Justice Munir expressed his deep concern over this error, emphasizing that such mistakes are not merely clerical but reflect a broader issue of maintaining respect for the judiciary.
Justice Munir pointed out that a retired judge should not be referred to with the suffix “Retired” appended to “Mr. Justice.” Instead, the correct protocol is to refer to a retired judge by “Mr. Justice…” followed by “Retired Judge” or “Retired Judge of the High Court of…” without attaching “Retired” directly to the judge’s title. The court noted that this error is unfortunately common and stressed the need for government officials to adhere to the correct protocol.
In response to this issue, the court directed the Registrar (Protocol) to submit a detailed report on the existing and past protocol guidelines concerning the reference to retired judges. Furthermore, the Registrar (Protocol) was tasked with investigating the specific breach and ensuring that proper guidelines are followed in the future.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Name: Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others vs. State of U.P.
– Case Number: WRIT – A No. 18956 of 2022
– Bench: Hon’ble Justice J.J. Munir
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma
– Respondent’s Counsel: C.S.C.
