The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the 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 and a civil servant, who is not the holder of a sovereign constitutional office, is not entitled to use the same.

The High Court was dealing with a matter where the name of BJP MP and former Union Minister Anurag Thakur was not described with the usual honorific of Hon'ble in an FIR. The informant had mentioned that he was unaware of the protocol regarding use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or Former Union Ministers.

The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena held, “It is to be noted that the 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. "Hon'ble" 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.”

Advocate Pankaj Sharma represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

The Bench further explained that 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”, it added.

The Bench closed this particular dispute by clarifying, “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.”

Cause Title: Harshit Sharma v. State Of U.P. (Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 4982 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Pankaj Sharma

Respondent: Government Advocate, Advocate Om Prakash Mishra

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice JJ MunirJustice Tarun Saxena

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.