Allahabad High Court on Honorifics: MPs, Judges, Ministers Entitled to “Hon’ble”, Not Civil Servants

The Allahabad High Court has held that constitutional functionaries, including Members of Parliament, must be addressed with the honorific “Hon’ble” in official communications, observing that personal familiarity or grievance cannot justify deviation from established protocol.

The Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was dealing with a criminal writ petition filed by Harshit Sharma and others, where an issue arose regarding the omission of an honorific in a complaint forming the basis of a check FIR.

At the outset, court took on record an affidavit of compliance submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh. The affidavit clarified that the Hindi typed complaint, which led to the registration of the FIR, had been produced by the first informant, Khajan Singh, and was reproduced verbatim in the FIR document.

The State further informed the court that, in compliance with earlier directions, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, had been instructed on April 2, 2026 to initiate a preliminary inquiry into the issue relating to the naming and use of honorifics for a former Union Minister.

According to the affidavit, the informant stated that he was unaware of the protocol governing the use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or former Union Ministers. The court, however, did not accept this as a justification for deviation from established norms.

Addressing the issue, the bench specifically noted that Anurag Thakur, being a sitting Member of Parliament, is entitled to be addressed with the honorific “Hon’ble.” The court went on to elaborate the scope of the usage of this honorific, observing that it is reserved for constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions across the three organs of the State—executive, legislature, and judiciary.

The bench clarified that civil servants, regardless of rank, are not entitled to such honorifics, as they do not occupy sovereign constitutional offices. It further enumerated categories of officials entitled to the honorific, including Union and State ministers, judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, Speakers and Chairpersons of legislative bodies, as well as Members of Parliament and State Legislatures.

In a significant observation, the court held that personal disgruntlement or familiarity with a constitutional functionary cannot justify addressing them without the prescribed honorific. It emphasized that adherence to protocol is mandatory wherever applicable and concluded that this aspect of the matter stood closed.

On the procedural side, the court also recorded that a counter affidavit had already been filed by the State. Additionally, a separate counter affidavit submitted by counsel for respondent no. 3 was taken on record and directed to be numbered by the office.

Granting further opportunity to the petitioners, the bench permitted them to file a rejoinder affidavit within one week.

Court directed that the matter be listed afresh on May 11, 2026.

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

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

Order Date: April 30, 2026

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