The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has observed that the honorific “Hon’ble” must be appended to the names of constitutional functionaries exercising sovereign functions. The Court clarified that while civil servants are not entitled to this title, it is a matter of protocol for Ministers, Judges, and Members of Parliament, and cannot be omitted due to “personal disgruntlement.”
The primary issue addressed in this order pertained to the omission of the proper honorific for a Former Union Minister and current Member of Parliament, Mr. Anurag Thakur, in a typed complaint that formed the basis of a check FIR. The Court examined the protocols surrounding the use of honorifics for constitutional office holders and the responsibility of complainants and authorities to maintain such decorum.
Background
The matter arose within the context of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4982 of 2026, filed by Harshit Sharma and others. During the proceedings, a discrepancy was noted regarding the name and honorific of the Former Union Minister in the legal documents. Consequently, the Court had previously directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate an order leading to a preliminary inquiry by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura.
In response, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., filed an affidavit of compliance. The affidavit stated that the Hindi typed complaint, which was reproduced verbatim in the check FIR, was produced by the first informant, Khajan Singh. According to the state’s submission, Khajan Singh claimed he was “unaware of the protocol regarding use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or Former Union Ministers.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, clarified the legal and protocol-based standing of the honorific “Hon’ble.”
The Court held:
“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 Bench specifically distinguished between constitutional office holders and administrative officials, stating:
“‘Hon’ble’ is an honorific which no functionary, howsoever high, who is a civil servant and not the holder of a sovereign constitutional office, is entitled to use.”
The Court further enumerated the categories of individuals entitled to the honorific, including Ministers of Central and State Governments, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Speaker and Chairman of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and Members of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies.
Critically, the Court emphasized that personal feelings do not override these protocols:
“Personal disgruntlement or familiarity with a family, who is entitled to an honorific, cannot permit the author of any communication to refer to a sovereign functionary of the Government, entitled to the honorific, to be referred to without it.”
Decision
Following the explanations provided in the compliance affidavit, the Court noted that this specific aspect of the matter “stands closed.”
Regarding the ongoing writ petition, the Court took on record a counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3. The petitioners’ counsel has been granted one week to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on May 11, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Harshit Sharma And 2 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 4982 of 2026
Bench: Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Tarun Saxena
Date: April 30, 2026
