Case Law Details
Harshit Sharma And 2 Others Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Use of Honorific “Hon’ble” Restricted to Sovereign Constitutional Functionaries: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Protocol and Constitutional Position
In a significant observation touching upon constitutional protocol and the dignity attached to sovereign offices, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while hearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4982 of 2026, clarified that the honorific “Hon’ble” is reserved for constitutional functionaries performing sovereign functions of the State and not for civil servants, irrespective of how high a post they may hold.
The Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was dealing with an issue arising from a complaint and FIR where the name of former Union Minister and sitting Member of Parliament Mr. Anurag Thakur was allegedly mentioned without the appropriate honorific. The Court took note of the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, and observed that the informant had stated he was unaware of the protocol relating to the use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or former Union Ministers.
The Court categorically observed:
“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.”
At the same time, the Court drew a clear distinction between constitutional authorities and civil servants by further observing:
“‘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.”
Meaning and Scope of “Sovereign Functions”
Though the Constitution does not expressly define the term “sovereign functions,” Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently treated them as functions inherently connected with governance and the exercise of State authority. These broadly include legislative, executive, and judicial powers exercised through the constitutional organs of the State.
Traditionally, sovereign functions include:
- Legislative functions performed by Parliament and State Legislatures;
- Judicial functions exercised by Courts;
- Executive and policy-making functions carried out by constitutional executives such as Ministers;
- Functions concerning administration of justice, law-making, governance, national security, and public administration in the constitutional sense.
The doctrine has evolved through judicial precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati and N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Supreme Court of India explained that sovereign functions are those which are inalienable to the State and performed in exercise of constitutional authority.
Constitutional Functionaries Entitled to the Honorific
The Allahabad High Court specifically noted that the following constitutional authorities are entitled to the use of the honorific “Hon’ble”:
- Ministers of the Central and State Governments;
- Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts;
- Speakers and Chairpersons of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, and State Legislatures;
- Members of Parliament;
- Members of State Legislative Assemblies;
- Other similarly placed constitutional functionaries as recognized by protocol.
The Court further emphasized that personal familiarity, disagreement, or disgruntlement cannot justify addressing such sovereign constitutional functionaries without the prescribed honorific.
Distinction Between Constitutional Offices and Civil Servants
An important aspect of the order is the constitutional distinction it reiterates between sovereign constitutional offices and civil services.
A constitutional office is one created directly by, or deriving authority from, the Constitution itself. Persons holding such offices exercise sovereign powers of the State. These include Ministers, Members of Parliament, MLAs, Judges, Speakers of legislative bodies, and other constitutional authorities.
Civil servants, on the other hand, are government employees appointed to administer and implement laws and policies. Officers belonging to the IAS, IPS, IRS, or other services may hold extremely influential positions, yet they function within the administrative machinery under the executive government. Their authority flows from statutes, service rules, and delegated powers, rather than directly from the Constitution as sovereign authorities.
In simple terms, constitutional functionaries are those who govern as part of the sovereign organs of the State, whereas civil servants assist in governance and implementation.
Significance of the Order
Though rendered in the context of a procedural controversy relating to an FIR, the observations carry wider significance regarding constitutional etiquette, institutional dignity, and official protocol in public discourse and governmental communication.
The order serves as a reminder that constitutional offices are accorded specific forms of address not as matters of personal privilege, but as recognition of the sovereign functions attached to those offices within the constitutional framework of India.
Refer link for Order: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:1c26791c-0a14-4e70-9524-76feba56c9a8
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
We take note of the affidavit of compliance filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow. He has averred in paragraph no. 9 of the affidavit that the Hindi typed complaint, on the basis of which the check FIR was registered, was produced by Khajan Singh, the first informant and it was reproduced in column 12 of the check FIR verbatim.
In paragraph no. 9 it is stated that after the receipt of communication of this Court’s order from the Registrar (Compliance), directions were issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura on 02.04.2026 to initiate a preliminary inquiry regarding name and honorific for the Former Union Minister.
It is said in paragraph no. 10 that Khajan Singh has stated that he was unaware of the protocol regarding use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or Former Union Ministers.
Mr. Anurag Thakur is an Hon’ble Member of Parliament and is entitled to the honorific.
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.
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.
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. This part of the matter stands closed.
A counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the State, in answer to the writ petition and another counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. O.P. Mishra, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent no. 3 in Court today.
Let the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 be taken on record and numbered by the office.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners will file a rejoinder affidavit within a week.
Lay this matter as fresh again on 11.05.2026.
Author Bio
