The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern about the practice of government officials appending "retired" to the names of former High Court judges and has directed the State to correct this issue.
Justice JJ Munir clarified that the term "retired" should not be used as part of a judge’s name. Instead, it should be phrased as "Retired Judge" or "Retired Judge of the High Court" following the judge's name.
“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.
Justice Munir stated that, given the matter's protocol nature, the Registrar (Protocol) should provide a report on the issue.
“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),” ordered the Court.
The Court raised the issue after discovering that a former judge's name was incorrectly listed in an affidavit submitted by an Uttar Pradesh government officer in response to a court order. The affidavit, prepared by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), referred to a committee chaired by “Hon’ble Justice Shri JN Mittal.” However, the Court pointed out that the correct name of the judge is Justice AN Mittal.
“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,” it said.
The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on August 30.
Advocates Aditya Prakash Verma and Shailesh Verma represented the petitioners.
Case Title: Lavkush Tiwari and 1486 others vs State of UP and Others
