The Allahabad High Court has said that a constitutional functionary entitled to an honorific like ‘Hon’ble’ cannot be referred to without it [Harshit Sharma And 2 Others v State of UP and 2 Others]
In an order passed on April 30, the Bench explained that honorific 'Hon'ble' is to be appended to the names of constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions of any of the three organs of the government. It added that civil servants, howsoever high, are not entitled to use the honorific.
"The Ministers of the Central and State Governments, the Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Speaker, the Chairman of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, respectively and likewise of the State Legislative Assemblies, the Members of Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies are entitled to the use of this honorific. There could be other similar functionaries who, according to the protocol, are entitled. Whosoever is entitled to the use of this honorific has to be addressed likewise," the Bench said.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena in a case in which the Uttar Pradesh Police failed to mention 'Hon'ble' before former Union Minister Anurag Thakur's name in a First Information Report (FIR).
In an earlier passed on March 31, the Court had asked the State home secretary to explain the protocol lapse.
The State then conducted an inquiry into the matter. It told the Court that the person, who had made the complaint leading to the FIR, was unaware about the protocol regarding use of honorifics for members of parliament (MP) or former union ministers.
On April 30, the Court closed the matter after taking the State's explanation on record.
However, the Court also explained who all are entitled to use of honorifics before their names.
"Mr. Anurag Thakur is an Hon'ble Member of Parliament and is entitled to the honorific," the Bench said in the order passed on April 30.
The Bench explained that honorific 'Hon'ble' has to be appended to Ministers of the Central and State Governments, judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the Speaker, the Chairman of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, respectively and of the State Legislative Assemblies, the Members of Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies.
It emphasised that the honorific must be added to such functionaries in all circumstances.
"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."
The Court was dealing with a plea seeking quashing of a first information report (FIR) alleging criminal intimidation and criminal breach of trust.
It was alleged that the accused had taken ₹80 lakh from the complainant on the pretext of getting him a job. They later failed to return the amount and even threatened to kill him, as per the police compliant.
Former union minister Anurag Thakur is not an accused in the case but his name finds mention in the FIR.
[Read Order]