Using ‘Hon’ble’ for Bureaucrats Undermines Courts, Constitution: Allahabad HC to UP Govt

The Allahabad High Court has pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government over what it described as a growing and troubling practice of addressing bureaucrats as “Hon’ble” in official correspondence and orders, warning that such usage undermines the constitutional hierarchy and the authority of courts.

Hearing a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Yogesh Sharma, a division bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad took strong exception to the manner in which an Additional Commissioner (Appeal) was referred to as “Hon’ble Additional Commissioner, Appeal” in state records. Court said the practice was not innocuous, but a “subtle but certain way to diminish the status of constitutional authorities and courts".

The bench noted that this was not an isolated instance. According to the court, there has been a recent and noticeable trend across the state administration where officials, from the lowest rungs to senior bureaucratic positions, are being prefixed with the word “Honourable” in correspondence, files, and even judicial orders. The judges made it clear that such usage has no basis in constitutional convention or administrative protocol.

Reiterating established norms, court observed that the prefix “Hon’ble” is reserved for Ministers and other sovereign functionaries. “The same does not hold good for bureaucrats or officials of the State Government,” the bench said, stressing that indiscriminate use of the honorific blurs the distinction between elected representatives, constitutional authorities, and civil servants.

To reinforce its point, court referred to a recent order passed by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court in Krishn Gopal Rathore vs State of U.P. and others. In that case, the court had flagged a similar issue where a Divisional Commissioner was addressed as “Honourable Commissioner” in official correspondence sent by a district collector. The single judge had then sought clarity on whether any protocol existed that entitled state officials to such honorifics.

Quoting from that earlier order, the division bench recalled that the high court had already expressed its lack of awareness of any rule permitting the use of “Hon’ble” for secretaries or other bureaucrats serving the state government. The judges emphasised that conventions around titles and designations are not a matter of personal preference but flow from constitutional structure and long-settled administrative practice.

In the present case, court directed the Principal Secretary, Department of State Taxes, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to personally explain the legal basis for the usage. The senior official has been asked to file a personal affidavit disclosing the authority of law, if any, under which an Additional Commissioner (Appeal) is being styled as “Hon’ble”.

The bench also granted time to the state’s counsel, the Additional Government Advocate, to obtain instructions on the merits of the issue.

Case Title: Yogesh Sharma Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Order Date: December 15, 2025

Bench: Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad