The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that constitutional functionaries entitled to the honorific “Hon’ble” must be addressed accordingly in official communications, holding that personal familiarity or grievance cannot justify its omission.
A Division Bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena was dealing with a plea where the issue arose from a complaint referring to a former Union Minister and sitting Member of Parliament without using the prescribed honorific.
The Court took on record an affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), stating that the omission occurred as the informant was unaware of the applicable protocol. However, the Bench clarified that lack of awareness does not dilute the requirement of adhering to established conventions.
Clarifying the scope of the usage, the Court observed that the honorific “Hon’ble” is reserved for constitutional authorities exercising sovereign functions, including Ministers, Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, and judges of constitutional courts. It further noted that civil servants are not entitled to use the honorific.
The Court noted that “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.”
Emphasising the importance of institutional decorum, the Bench held that individuals entitled to such honorific must be addressed accordingly, and personal sentiments cannot override official protocol.
The Court noted that the issue regarding usage of the honorific stands resolved and directed the matter to be listed for further proceedings, granting time to the petitioners to file a rejoinder affidavit.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj SharmaCounsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Om Prakash Mishra
