The Allahabad High Court held MPs must be addressed as “Hon’ble” in official communications, rejecting omission due to familiarity or grievance, during a hearing by Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that constitutional functionaries such as Members of Parliament must be addressed using the honorific “Hon’ble” in official communications. The court said that personal familiarity, misunderstanding, or grievance cannot be used to justify departing from established protocol.
The Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Harshit Sharma and others. The controversy arose because an honorific was omitted in a complaint that later formed the basis of a check FIR.
At the outset, the court recorded an affidavit of compliance submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh. The affidavit explained that the complaint in Hindi typed and treated as the source for registration of the FIR had been authored by the first informant, Khajan Singh. It further stated that the FIR document reproduced the complaint verbatim.
The State also informed the court that, in line with earlier directions, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, was instructed on April 2, 2026 to carry out a preliminary inquiry into the issue of naming and the use of honorifics for a former Union Minister.
The affidavit noted that the informant claimed he was unaware of the protocol relating to the use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or former Union Ministers. The Bench, however, did not accept ignorance as a valid reason to deviate from established norms.
In its observations, the court stated that Anurag Thakur, being a sitting Member of Parliament, is entitled to be addressed with the honorific “Hon’ble.” The Bench also clarified the purpose and scope of using the honorific, saying it applies to constitutional functionaries who perform sovereign roles across the three organs of the State executive, legislature, and judiciary.
The court further held that civil servants, irrespective of their position, are not entitled to such honorifics because they do not hold sovereign constitutional offices. It also listed other categories of officials who should be addressed as “Hon’ble,” including Union and State ministers, judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, Speakers and Chairpersons of legislative bodies, and Members of Parliament as well as Members of State Legislatures.
Making a broader remark, the Bench observed that personal disgruntlement or familiarity with a constitutional functionary cannot be a basis for addressing them without the prescribed honorific. It emphasized that compliance with protocol is mandatory wherever it is applicable, and stated that this part of the matter stood closed.
On the procedural front, the court recorded that the State had already filed a counter affidavit. It also took on record a separate counter affidavit submitted by counsel for respondent no. 3 and directed that it be numbered by the office.
Granting the petitioners additional opportunity, the Bench allowed them to file a rejoinder affidavit within one week. The court directed that the matter be listed again on May 11, 2026.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE