INTRODUCTION
The Allahabad High Court has held that some Constitutional authorities, such as Members of Parliament, can use the honorific “Hon’ble” in official correspondence, even if they are not personally acquainted with the complainant or if the complainant has not filed any complaints against them. In an order, a Division Bench of Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena held that the title “Hon’ble” is reserved for persons holding “sovereign” constitutional positions in the three branches of government, namely, legislature, executive and judiciary. The ruling was intended to enforce proper protocol and ensure that people holding sovereign constitutional offices are addressed by the correct title in official and legal correspondence.
BACKGROUND
Khajan Singh filed a complaint in a Hindi-typed form, which resulted in the registration of a check FIR. Mr Anurag Thakur, a former Union Minister and current Member of Parliament, has been cited in this complaint without being correctly recognised. The High Court took account of the omission. On April 2, 2026, it directed the Registrar (Compliance) to conduct a preliminary investigation into the reason for the failure to utilise suitable honorifics.
In accordance with the Court’s directive, an investigation into the matter was initiated by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura. The first informant, Khajan Singh, disclosed during the course of the investigation that he was not privy to the specific protocol of addressing Members of Parliament and Former Union Ministers.
KEY POINTS
-
- Those who carry out sovereign obligations within the three branches of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—may be addressed as “Hon’ble.”
- This comprises members of Parliament and state assemblies, speakers and chairmen of these bodies, Supreme Court and High Court justices, and federal and state ministries. They should be addressed using this title.
- The Court made it clear that public servants are not allowed to use the title “Hon’ble” because they do not occupy sovereign constitutional offices, regardless of how high their rank may be.
- The judges highlighted the fact that no one has the right to ignore the appropriate protocol in official contacts due to personal acquaintance or private conflicts with a public figure.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In the detailed judgment in Harshit Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (2026:CRLP:4982), as of the April 30, 2026, hearing, the Court has officially closed the matter regarding the use of titles, concluding that Mr Anurag Thakur is an Hon’ble member of Parliament and must be addressed with the proper honorific. The Judges established a clear rule that the title “Hon’ble” is reserved for constitutional functionaries in sovereign roles and explicitly excludes civil servants. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) for the Government of U.P. filed an affidavit of compliance detailing the findings of the inquiry into the original police complaint.
A counter-affidavit from the respondent no. 3 was filed in court and officially taken on record to be numbered by the office. The Court provided the petitioners’ counsel with one week to draft a “rejoinder affidavit.” This case will be considered “fresh” and heard on May 11, 2026. A petition to quash the FIR on accusations of criminal intimidation and breach of trust was being considered by the court. Notably, despite his name being in the FIR, former Union Minister Anurag Thakur is not listed as one of the accused in this case.
CONCLUSION
The High Court used this session to settle a significant point of administrative and legal conduct regarding how public officials are addressed in formal documents. This serves as both a final directive on legal etiquette and a procedural transition for the ongoing litigation. The Court made it clear that Mr Anurag Thakur, as a Member of Parliament, should be called “Hon’ble”. It said that some people, like government ministers, get this title, but civil servants do not, no matter how senior they are. The Court further stated that even if we don’t personally like someone, we should respect institutions and abide by the law. This implies that a person should still be treated with respect even if they have an issue with an official. The Court drew a line between people who work for the government in roles and those who do not. “Hon’ble” is a term reserved for individuals such as Mr Anurag Thakur. He is a lawmaker. Respecting MPs like Mr Anurag Thakur is at the heart of the decision. The status of members of parliament, such as Mr Anurag Thakur, is the reason for this regard. This specific issue was declared officially closed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: B LOUKIKA
