Back
'' Not for Everyone: Allahabad HC Draws the Line on Official Respect
In a crisp ruling that clarifies a subtle yet significant protocol in India's legal and administrative lexicon, the has ruled that only wielding sovereign powers deserve the honorific "" before their names in official documents. The bench, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena , made this observation while addressing a criminal miscellaneous (No. 4982 of 2026) involving an that snubbed former Union Minister and current MP Anurag Thakur by omitting the prefix.
The decision underscores a key distinction: civil servants, no matter their rank, do not qualify. This comes amid compliance proceedings in a case where initially faltered on protocol.
From Oversight to High Court Spotlight
The saga began with a "check " in Mathura, registered based on a Hindi complaint by informant Khajan Singh . The document verbatim reproduced the complaint but notably dropped "" before Anurag Thakur's name— a breach later flagged in the filed against the and two others.
Petitioners, represented by advocate , challenged aspects of the process. The state, through its Additional Chief Secretary (Home), filed an confirming directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, for a preliminary inquiry into the honorific lapse. Khajan Singh claimed ignorance of protocols for MPs and former ministers.
As media reports noted, this wasn't just bureaucratic nitpicking; it spotlighted longstanding ambiguity on who merits "" in police records and beyond, with the court stepping in to provide definitive guidance.
Petitioners Push for Protocol, State Scrambles to Comply
Petitioners argued that Anurag Thakur, as an Member of Parliament, was entitled to the prefix under established norms—a right tied to his sovereign role. They highlighted the 's verbatim reproduction of the complaint as perpetuating the error.
The state countered via , admitting the oversight, noting Khajan Singh's unawareness, and affirming Thakur's entitlement. A separate from respondent no. 3, filed by counsel , was taken on record. No had been filed yet, but petitioners were granted a week to respond.
The bench accepted the compliance, effectively closing the honorific dispute while keeping the writ alive for deeper scrutiny.
Decoding '': Sovereign Power, Not Seniority
No precedents were directly cited, but the court meticulously outlined the principle:
"the honorific '
' is to be appended to the names of
who exercise
of any of the
."
It drew a firm line against civil servants:
"'
' 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."
Eligible roles include: - Ministers of Central and State Governments - Judges of the and - Speakers and Chairmen of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, and state assemblies - Members of Parliament and state legislatures
"There could be other similar functionaries who, according to the protocol, are entitled,"
the bench added, emphasizing mandatory use:
"Whosoever is entitled to the use of this honorific has to be addressed likewise. Personal disgruntlement or familiarity with a family... cannot permit the author of any communication to refer to a sovereign functionary... without it."
This reasoning integrates seamlessly with broader protocol discussions, as echoed in contemporary reports clarifying the context.
Key Observations
"Mr. Anurag Thakur is an Member of Parliament and is entitled to the honorific."
"The Ministers of the Central and State Governments, the Judges of the and the , the Speaker, the Chairman of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha... are entitled to the use of this honorific."
"Personal disgruntlement or familiarity with a family, who is entitled to an honorific, cannot permit... to refer to a sovereign functionary of the Government, entitled to the honorific, to be referred to without it."
"This part of the matter stands closed."
Protocol Enforced, Case Continues
The court noted the state's , directed a within a week, and adjourned to
. While the honorific issue is resolved—
"this part of the matter stands closed"
—the
persists, potentially probing
merits.
Implications? This sets a binding etiquette benchmark for FIRs, affidavits, and official correspondence nationwide. Police stations and scribes must now double-check protocols, especially for MPs and judges, reducing casual omissions. For future cases, it reinforces that sovereign status trumps familiarity, potentially influencing administrative training and protocol manuals.
A small prefix, but a big statement on respect for India's constitutional pillars.
