A recent order of the Allahabad High Court, arising from a criminal writ petition, ventured into an unexpected question: Who is “entitled” to be addressed as “Honourable”? The issue before the court was minor. A complaint in an FIR had referred to a Member of Parliament without the honorific style of address. Hearing this narrow procedural issue, the court declared that this particular style of address must be used for ministers, judges, and other “similar functionaries”.

At a cursory level, this may appear a matter of courtesy — or in this particular instance, a matter of failing to extend courtesy, whether inadvertent or deliberate. Consider it at length, and the matter raises a deeper constitutional question: What place do honorific titles have in a republic that explicitly abolished titles?

Also Read: The Economist’s India column, ‘Ashoka', is condescending

One need only look at Article 18, and the anti-feudal nature of the Constitution becomes clear. Article 18 forms part of the Constitution’s equality code. Its abolition of titles marked a decisive break from India’s colonial and feudal past. Colonial governance relied heavily on honorific distinctions — Raja, Maharaja, Nawab, Rai Bahadur, Sir — to reward loyalty to the colonial government and reinforce hierarchy. Titles created distance between rulers and the ruled.

The Constitution rejected that hierarchy. In a republic, citizens are not ranked by State-sanctioned honour. As for public office, India’s foundational document reimagined this as service rather than status.

The........

© hindustantimes