(/)

 (/login) Subscribe Premium(/pricing)

Search on LiveLaw 

Home (/) / Law Firms (/law-firms) / Law Firm Articles (/law-firms/law-firm-articles-) /

My Lord, It's not about 'Your...

My Lord, It's not about 'Your Honour'!

Mohit Kumar Gupta
(/mohit-kumar-gupta)
21 Oct 2021 10:11 AM

Share this

"You cannot force someone to respect you, but you can refuse to be
disrespected", a quote, though by someone unknown, truly encapsulates the
natural principle of human tendencies, which, in all circumstances, cannot be so
regulated through rules and procedures, as the subjects are products of emotions
largely, than of logic. The fluid nature and fine line of distinguishable difference
between respect and disrespect, tends to define the relations in personal and
professional space, and is no different when it comes to how the learned
counsels, public officials and other members of the public, are found addressing
the honourable judges in our country. As it is usually said, that the past will define
the future, in many ways, India is still being subjected to adopted slavery with the
carrying on of the British Courts' undefined and unreasoned practices. It bears no
doubt that many countries use titles for addressing the honourable judges in
accordance with their customs and traditions. However, the use of the titles viz.
'Your lordship/ladyship' and 'Milord/My Lord' to address the honourable Judges in
India, prevent us to give our court system an identity of its own and a sense of
belongingness 'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA' desire.

Before, we advert to the real and practical issues concerning the need to have a
uniform and pervasive implementation of a localized suited system of addressing
the honourable judges in our country, the practice as is presently being found
prevalent in twenty five (25) major countries of the world, must be seen, if not
studied, to understand the context and issues surrounding therewith, the same
being contained herein below, in the form of tabular researched details:
Loading…
Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4

Notably, one can easily relate to, that apart from many other practices, India has
inherited courtroom etiquettes from the British. In other words, they are a relic of
colonial rule. In the United Kingdom, judges of the Court of Appeals and the High
Court are addressed as 'My Lord' or 'My Lady'; Circuit judges as 'Your Honour';
Magistrates as 'Your Worship', or 'Sir' or 'Madam'; and District judges and Tribunal
judges as 'Sir' or 'Madam'. Therefore, the genesis of the legality of such use, has
been in the long usage of the practice, and being passed on from generation to
generation, through learnings of the court craft and procedures.

In the Indian context, where the country's social fabric is interwoven with
secularism and equality, if one studies the general parlance, the term 'Lord' is
understood in terms of attributing the said title to Deities namely Lord Shiva
(Hindus), Lord Jesus (Christians), Rabb/Allah (Lord and Master/God) - [Muslims]
and others, and accordingly, the usage does not bear any semblance to any living
personality in any manner. The status of faith and divine powers, could not have
been so meant to be bestowed upon a living individual or group of individuals, and
that too way by a select few, in the course of professional etiquettes, without
having a wilful acceptance of the people at large. Such titles are though just
'Honorifics' as a matter of court practice, but may have a tendency to be wrongly
understood in its extension or overlap with religious practices and sentiments of
any or every community in India. Therefore, the compulsion to address the
honourable judges as such, being a part of legacy and unwritten long-standing
diktat, was to be shown the guided route in order to bring out a near uniform
approach, consistent with the dignity and majesty of the courts and largely, for the
justice delivery system as a whole.

The role of the regulator of the legal profession, cannot be forgotten, and has to be
valued both in terms of its rule making and supervisory duties towards the
implementation of its rules, policies and standards. The Bar Council of India is a
statutory body created by Parliament to regulate and represent the Indian bar. The
council performs the regulatory function by prescribing standards of professional
conduct and etiquette and by exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the bar. The
home page on the official website of the Bar Council of India, displays the
description of a page titled as 'Brief History of law in India' as is available at
specific web link i.e. http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/about-the-legal-
profession/legal-education-in-the-united-kingdom/
(http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/about/about-the-legal-profession/legal-
education-in-the-united-kingdom/), wherein it is stated that, as extracted in parts:
"Law in India has evolved from religious prescription to the current constitutional
and legal system we have today, traversing through secular legal systems and the
common law. Secular law in India varied widely from region to region and from
ruler to ruler. Law as a matter of religious prescriptions and philosophical
discourse has an illustrious history in India. The Indian Bar had a role in the
Independence movement that can hardly be overstated – that the tallest leaders
of the movement across the political spectrum were lawyers is ample proof. The
Constitution of India is the guiding light in all matters executive, legislative and
judicial in the country. It is extensive and aims to be sensitive. The Constitution
turned the direction of system originally introduced for perpetuation of colonial
and imperial interests in India, firmly in the direction of social welfare. The
Constitution explicitly and through judicial interpretation seeks to empower the
weakest members of the society. India has an organic law as consequence of
common law system. Through judicial pronouncements and legislative action, this
has been fine-tuned for Indian conditions. The Indian legal system's move towards
a social justice paradigm, though undertook independently, can be seen to mirror
the changes in other territories with common law system. From an artifice of the
colonial masters, the Indian legal system has evolved as an essential ingredient of
the world's largest democracy and a crucial front in the battle to secure
constitutional rights for every citizen." (emphasis supplied), and make us to realize
the need for localization of the practices and procedures, best aligned to our own
people and their needs, in the application of law for dispensation of justice.

In the said direction forward, the Bar Council of India made a serious attempt in
the year 2006 post consideration of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in re Progressive & Vigilant Lawyers Forum [W.P. (Civil) 40/2006]
that the matter was to be decided by the BCI as how the Judges should be
addressed, by exercising its powers under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act,
1961, and made rules on professional and etiquette standards to be observed by
advocates, in so far as it related to addressing the honourable judges in different
courts in the country and in furtherance thereof, Chapter IIIA to Part VI of the BCI
Rules was added through a resolution by the council. The relevant extract of the
said resolution is reproduced herein below, for ready reference:

CHAPTER-IIIA: To address the Court

Consistent with the obligation of the Bar to show a respectful attitude towards the
Court and bearing in mind the dignity of Judicial Office, the form of address to be
adopted whether in the Supreme Court, High Courts or Subordinate Courts
should be as follows: "Your Honour" or "Hon'ble Court" in Supreme Court & High
Courts and in the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals it is open to the Lawyers to
address the Court as "Sir" or the equivalent word in respective regional
languages.

Explanation- As the words "My Lord" and "Your Lordship" are relics of a Colonial
past, it is proposed to incorporate the above rule showing respectful attitude to
the Court.

The said resolution was circulated vide letter bearing ref. no. STBC (CIR)
No.11/2006 dated 20.04.2006 by the Bar Council of India to the Secretaries of all
the State Bar Councils and also to the Registrars' of all the High Courts in the
country, requesting them to circulate the said resolution to all the Bar Associations
in their states, and to others also, in order to give adequate publicity to the said
resolution among the lawyers. Subsequent thereof, the same was published in the
Gazette of India and officially came into force with effect from 06.05.2006, with its
addition as Chapter IIIA in Part VI in the Bar Council of India Rules. But, where is
the controversy now when the law is clear, concise and communicated to
everyone, and calling out only for compliance?

The answer lies in self-contradictions by the Bar Council of India itself, besides the
non-adoption of it by the Hon'ble Courts, and mixed as well as confused fearful
compliance by the learned advocates. The losing party in the entire official
transaction is a learned advocate, who has been put in a fix, with the continuing
incertitude about the use of right title or term. Nobody as it is felt, might be so
interested to bring such change in the courtroom, where the use of title, in line with
the Bar Council of India's rule, is not prevalent or otherwise encouraged. Although,
the Bar Associations of the Kerala High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High
Court have issued resolutions in line with the council's rule deprecating the
practice of using 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship', the success might not have come
much as intended.
The 2006 rule discouraged the use of 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship', and prescribed
'Your Honour' or 'Hon'ble Court' as an acceptable way for addressing the Supreme
Court & High Courts, and 'Sir' in Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. But, the said
distinction too is unnecessary as respect towards and faith reposed in the judicial
office cannot be segregated in terms of the jurisdiction exercised, and the real
difficulty has been created by our own council by issuing a press release dated
23.02.2021 wherein it has been informed that:

"The BCI would like to clarify that as far as back on 28th September, 2019 on the
request made by Office-Bearers of Bar Association of some High Courts with
regard to the Advocates addressing the court, it was resolved that as per mostly
preferred and prevalent practice, lawyers of the country be requested to address
the Hon'ble Judges of various High Courts and Supreme Court as 'My Lord' or
'Your Lordships' or 'Hon'ble Court', while Lawyers of Subordinate Courts, Tribunals
and other Forums may address the Court as 'Your Honour' or 'Sir' or the equivalent
word in respective regional languages."

However, it is not at all clear if the existing rule has been amended in line with the
resolution, which is purportedly being circulated as a press release, as issued by
the learned Chairman of the Bar Council of India. Usually, it is found that press
releases, on behalf of a public authority, are issued by or in the name of the
Secretary of that authority with specific identity number, being its file reference
number, along with the date of such issuance, and even the resolution dated 28
September, 2021 as referred in the press release, does not find uploaded on the
official website of the Bar Council of India. But in no way, the statutory rule, already
notified, could be taken off the statute book, by passing a resolution and that too,
without bringing the copy of the original document within the knowledge of the
interested and affected stakeholders.

Over to the judicial set-up with much flip-flops and varied approaches being
witnessed, in the year 2019, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in its full court
meeting had unanimously resolved to request the counsels and those who appear
before the Court to desist from addressing the Hon'ble Judges as 'My Lord' and
'Your Lordship', to honour the mandate of equality enshrined in the Constitution of
India. Similarly, many judges including Mr. Justice Ravindra Bhat, Judge, Supreme
Court of India, Mr. Justice S. Muralidhar, Chief Justice, Orissa High Court, Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Mr. Justice P
Krishna Bhat, Judge, Judge Karnataka High Court, have asked, time and again, the
learned advocates not to address them as 'lordships'. However, to the other side of
the coin, being the judicial side of adjudication of the said issue of addressing the
judges, a remark was found made by the then Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice S.
A. Bobde on 13.08.2020 wherein the title 'Your Honour' was held to be
inappropriate to be used in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, partaking the
practice of the court beyond and above the law of the land in force. Similar was
the issue in the year 2014, in the matter of Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs Secretary General
SCI and Ors. [W.P. (Civil) No. 881/2013], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India had rejected the petition seeking the ban on the usage of archaic
expressions of 'My Lord', your Lordship' and such others to be a symbol of slavery
and against the dignity of the country, by terming the same as a 'negative prayer'
and stated that the terms 'My Lord' and 'Your Lordship' had never been
compulsory.

'Specific Courtroom Compliance' i.e. a courtroom where the use of colonial titles
'My Lord', 'Your Lordship' and such others, is forbidden or discouraged, at the
instance of the request made or direction issued by the presiding judge, or
otherwise being fearlessly shunned by majority of the learned lawyers, in their own
volition as a matter of compliance to the rule framed and notified by the Bar
Council of India, has grown out bigger each day, as a general norm in the last
fifteen (15) years with few such courtrooms being found as such and there
appears to be no change being expected in the offing, and learned advocates who
have to uphold the best interests of his or her client, would himself or herself
generally restrain from mis-adventuring in such cause for obvious reasons, and
yes, these are those practical difficulties being faced with no clear solutions. Be
that as it may, the issue is not just about respect or disrespect to the Hon'ble
Judges, but it travels beyond it, to our freedom from colonization and in an
extended or pure view, a creative thorn to our independence, whether judicial or
otherwise.
The identification of the problem and its appropriate description is not sufficient,
unless accompanied with a solution. In this issue, simply the acceptance of the
rule framed by the Bar Council of India, by all the Hon'ble Judges is the fast
forward solution, as to be practiced by the learned lawyers over a period of time, to
make it a behavioural pattern in their courtroom exchange. The usage of terms or
tiles like "Your Honour" or "Hon'ble Court" or "Hon'ble Bench" or "Hon'ble Sir or
Madam" in a respectful manner, which is reflected through body language of the
person addressing, as a means of non-verbal communication, is a more
appropriate and desirable way of addressing the judges. The same should not be
perceived as disrespectful and unconventional and should be left entirely to the
discretion of the learned advocates, as respect through compulsion is no respect,
whether or not, the same is given or received. It is believed that the council's rule
of distinguishing the subordinate courts being the district judiciary, from the High
Courts and the Supreme Court, in terms of usage of the titles or terms while
addressing the their honourable judges, too should be avoided and necessary
amendments be made. Lastly, and at least, a matter before the Hon'ble Court
should not get prejudiced only because of the way a learned advocate, being an
officer of the court, addresses the honourable presiding judge(s), and practice of
law, being a noble profession, should be left to take its own creative and corrective
course of action, in the pursuit of justice.

The author, Mohit Kumar Gupta is an advocate at High Court of Delhi and District
Courts-Delhi NCR. He can be reached at contact@blackrobeslegal.com
(mailto:contact@blackrobeslegal.com) for any questions or feedback concerning
the write-up. The views expressed herein are personal in nature which do not
constitute legal advice as such and is not intended to be understood as
solicitation of work.
Tags Bar Council of India Rules (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/bar-council-of-india-rules)

Specific Courtroom Compliance (https://www.livelaw.in/tags/specific-courtroom-

compliance)