The Allahabad High Court has raised a significant query regarding the protocol of addressing government officials, directly questioning the widespread use of the prefix 'Honourable' for bureaucrats and state government officers. The court has demanded a clear legal authority justifying this practice.
Court's Stern Observation on Diminishing Constitutional Status
A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prashad issued this directive while hearing a petition filed by one Yogesh Sharma. The bench specifically asked why an official designated as "additional commissioner, appeal" was being referred to as "Hon'ble additional commissioner, appeal" in official documents.
The court made a strong observation, stating, "This is a subtle but certain way to diminish the status of constitutional authorities and courts." It noted a recent trend where the ranks of various state officials, from the lowest to the highest levels, are being preceded with the term 'honourable' in both correspondence and official orders.
Directive to Principal Secretary for Personal Affidavit
The bench clarified that the prefix 'Honourable' is traditionally reserved for ministers and other sovereign functionaries. "The same does not hold good for bureaucrats or officials of the state government," the court asserted.
Highlighting a specific instance, the order pointed out that in the case before them, the Divisional Commissioner of Kanpur was referred to by the Collector of Etawah as the 'honourable commissioner'. To address this systemic issue, the court, in its order dated December 16, directed the Principal Secretary of the state revenue department to file a personal affidavit.
The affidavit must disclose the authority of law that justifies such phrasing. The court further instructed the principal secretary to inform it if any official protocol exists that entitles state officials to have prefixes like 'Honourable' affixed to their designations or names.
Next Hearing and Broader Implications
The court has listed the matter for a fresh hearing on December 19. This judicial scrutiny puts a spotlight on bureaucratic practices and the importance of maintaining the distinct stature of constitutional offices. The move is seen as a corrective measure to uphold the dignity and specific honorifics reserved for elected representatives and constitutional authorities, distinguishing them from the administrative executive.
The outcome of this case could lead to standardized guidelines for official communication across Uttar Pradesh's government departments, ensuring proper decorum and protocol are followed in all formal address and documentation.
