Allahabad HC Objects To Incorrect Use of "Retired" With Judges' Names; Directs State To Correct Protocol Error

The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over the improper usage of the term "retired" with the names of former High Court judges and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to correct this protocol error.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice JJ Munir clarified that the word "retired" should not be appended to a judge's name as if it were part of the name itself. Instead, the correct protocol is to refer to a former judge as "Mr. Justice [Name]," followed by "Retired Judge" or "Retired Judge of the High Court."

The Court noted that this common mistake must be rectified by government officials. The issue came to light after an affidavit submitted by an officer of the Uttar Pradesh government incorrectly named a former judge as "Hon’ble Justice Shri JN Mittal" instead of "Mr. Justice AN Mittal." The Court criticized this error, stating it was disrespectful and breached proper protocol.

Taking note of an affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), the Single-Judge said, "This Court is pained to note that the description of the Hon'ble Judge, his name and protocol have all been breached. The Hon'ble Judge, to whom the reference is made in paragraph no. 18, is Mr. Justice A.N. Mittal. It is disrespectful to incorrectly name a Judge."

The Bench further stated that the protocol about reference to the Judge is also utterly flawed. "The flaw is common place these days. A retired Judge is not supposed to be referred to as "Hon'ble Mr. Justice ..... (Retired)". The word "Retired" is not to be appended as if it were to the name of the Judge. A Judge of the High Court, after he retires, still carries with his name, the title "Mr. Justice ...". All that is to be done in case of a retired Judge is that after a reference to his name as "Mr. Justice ....", the words "Retired Judge" or "Retired Judge of the High Court of ..." may be mentioned. It is not that after the name "Mr. Justice...." the word "Retired" is to be suffixed. This is a fallacy, of which the Government must take note," the Court said.

The Court directed the Registrar (Protocol) to submit a report on existing and past protocol guidelines regarding the matter. "Still, since this is a matter of protocol, let the Registrar (Protocol) submit a report in the matter. Let the necessary existing and past protocol guidelines on the issue, if any, be submitted along with the report to be submitted by the Registrar (Protocol). Let this order be brought to the notice of the Registrar (Protocol) by the Registrar (Compliance)," the Bench said in its order dated August 13.

Accordingly, the case will be heard again on August 30.

Cause Title: Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others v. State of UP & Ors.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma

Click here to read/download the Order