Union Minister Named Without ‘Hon’ble’ in FIR: Allahabad High Court Seeks UP Govt’s Explanation

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to explain why a Union Minister named in a First Information Report was not referred to with the customary honorific, while also seeking clarity on the ownership of a vehicle linked to the case.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena passed the order while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Harshit Sharma and two others.

According to the proceedings, the first informant was in possession of the vehicle and claimed that it was handed over to him by the first petitioner. Taking note of this assertion, court has sought verification of the vehicle’s registered ownership to ascertain the factual position. Court required the Additional Government Advocate to obtain instructions regarding the Fortuner SUV.

Apart from that, in a significant observation on procedural propriety, the bench also raised concerns over the manner in which a Union Minister had been described in the FIR.

Court noted that the Minister, whose name appeared in the FIR, was not addressed with the usual honorific “Hon’ble,” and at one instance, was referred to merely by name without even the prefix “Mr".

Taking note of the same, court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit explaining this lapse.

It observed that even if the first informant used inappropriate or informal language while drafting the initial complaint, it was incumbent upon the police authorities to ensure that official protocol was followed while preparing the check FIR.

The matter has been directed to be listed again on April 6, 2026, for further consideration.

In the meantime, court has instructed that a copy of the order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, within 48 hours through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, for compliance.

In this context, earlier this year, the Allahabad High Court had expressed strong disapproval of the growing practice of using the honorific “Hon’ble” for bureaucrats and government officials in official records. In that matter, an Additional Commissioner (Appeal) was referred to as “Hon’ble Additional Commissioner, Appeal” in state records.

Court had observed that such indiscriminate usage was not merely a matter of form, but had deeper constitutional implications, as it blurred the distinction between different classes of authorities recognised under the Constitution.

Court had emphasised that the prefix “Hon’ble” is traditionally reserved for Ministers and other sovereign or constitutional functionaries, and cannot be casually extended to government officials or bureaucrats. Calling the trend a “subtle but certain” way of diminishing the authority of courts and constitutional offices, the bench had cautioned against such protocol deviations and sought clarity from the State on whether any legal basis existed for this usage.

Case Title: Harshit Sharma And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Order Date: March 31, 2026

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena