Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed against an FIR wherein Anurag Thakur, former Union Minister, was mentioned by name without the honorific “Hon’ble”, the Division Bench of J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena, JJ., held that the honorific “Hon’ble” has to be appended to the names of constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions of any of the three organs of the Government.
Background
In the present writ petition filed against an FIR, the Court noted that the FIR mentioned Anurag Thakur’s name without the honorific “Hon’ble”. In fact, at one point, the report mentioned his name without appending “Mr” The Court opined that even if in the written report the minister was inappropriately described by the first informant, while writing the FIR, it was the duty of the police to have abided by the protocol by inserting the honorific, maybe in brackets.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file an affidavit in this regard.
Accordingly, the Additional Chief Secretary filed an affidavit wherein he stated that there was a Hindi typed complaint based on which the FIR was registered verbatim. He further stated that after the receipt of communication of this Court’s order dated 31 March 2026 from the Registrar (Compliance), directions were issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura, on 2 April 2026 to initiate a preliminary inquiry regarding the name and honorific for the former Union Minister.
The first informant submitted that he was unaware of the protocol regarding the use of honorifics for Members of Parliament or former Union Ministers.
Decision
The Court held that Anurag Thakur was an Hon’ble Member of Parliament and entitled to the honorific. The Court further held that the honorific “Hon’ble” has to be appended to the names of constitutional functionaries who exercise sovereign functions of any of the three organs of the Government.
The Court added 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, and they must be addressed like that.
“‘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 Court remarked that 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, without it.
Closing this subject, the Court proceeded to give directions regarding the writ petition and posted the matter for 11 May 2026.
[Harshit Sharma v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4982 of 2026, order dated 30-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Pankaj Sharma
For the respondent: AGA Shashi Shekhar Tiwari and Om Prakash Mishra
