The Allahabad High Court has issued a sharp rebuke against a growing practice in Uttar Pradesh's official communications: addressing state bureaucrats with the prefix 'Honourable'. A bench comprising Justices Ajay Bhanot and Garima Prashad labelled this trend a subtle yet certain method to diminish the stature of constitutional authorities and courts.
A Trend Noticed During Hearing
The court's strong observations came on January 5, 2026, while it was hearing a writ petition seeking the quashing of a criminal First Information Report (FIR). During the proceedings, the bench pointed out the increasing frequency with which officials, from the lowest to the highest ranks, were being referred to as 'Honourable' in government correspondence and orders.
The justices clarified the established protocol, stating that the title 'Honourable' is reserved exclusively for Hon'ble Ministers and other sovereign functionaries. It is not meant for bureaucrats or officials serving under the state government. "This Court has already noticed that the word honourable has to be prefixed only in case of Hon'ble Ministers and other sovereign functionaries. The same does not hold good for bureaucrats or officials of the State Government," the order explicitly stated.
Court Cites Precedent, Demands Affidavit
To bolster its stance, the bench referred to a previous ruling by a single judge of the same high court in the case of Krishn Gopal Rathore v. State of UP and others. In that instance, similar concerns were raised about the inappropriate use of 'Honourable' for officials like divisional commissioners.
Taking a firm step to curb this practice, the court directed the Principal Secretary of the Department of State Taxes, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit. This affidavit must explain the legal authority under which an Additional Commissioner (Appeal) is referred to as 'Hon'ble Additional Commissioner, Appeal'. The directive puts the onus on the senior bureaucrat to justify the usage.
Implications for Protocol and Hierarchy
The court's intervention highlights a significant issue of protocol and the symbolic hierarchy within India's democratic framework. By reserving specific honorifics for elected representatives and constitutional posts, the system maintains a clear distinction between different pillars of democracy. The indiscriminate use of 'Honourable' for the executive bureaucracy, the court implied, blurs these lines and potentially elevates the executive at the cost of the judiciary's perceived authority.
The order from Justices Bhanot and Prashad serves as a reminder of the importance of language and titles in upholding the sanctity of constitutional posts. It underscores the judiciary's role in checking practices that may, even unintentionally, alter the balance of power and respect among the state's institutions.
