The Allahabad High Court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit explaining why the title “Hon’ble” was omitted before the name of a Union Minister in a First Information Report (FIR). The court observed that even if a complainant fails to use the appropriate prefix, it remains the duty of the police to maintain official protocol when registering the document.
A division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena issued the order on March 31 while hearing a petition filed by Harshit Sharma and two others. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against them in Mathura.
During the proceedings, the bench took serious note of the manner in which a Union Minister was referenced in the police document. The court pointed out that the minister was not only denied the standard honorific of “Hon’ble” but was also referred to by name at one point without even the prefix “Mr.”
The court emphasized that the police department bears the responsibility of upholding the dignity of high offices in its records, regardless of the language used by the first informant in their written complaint.
“Even if in the written report, the 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 bench remarked.
The High Court has specifically sought a response from the state’s top home department official to understand the lapse in protocol.
The court stated, “The additional chief secretary (home), government of Uttar Pradesh, will explain on his affidavit why the Hon’ble Union minister, whose name figures in the FIR, has not been described with the usual honorific of Hon’ble.”
To ensure swift compliance, the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the court’s order to both the Additional Chief Secretary and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Mathura within 48 hours.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 6, by which time the required explanation must be submitted to the court.
