Court Etiquette History

The judiciary is known for treating everyone equal in the eyes of law in the process of imparting justice and maintaining order, but the people who are approaching this “abode of justice” also have to follow a certain code of conduct. Even before the introduction of the formal setup of the judiciary, the king and other assigned authorities used to impart justice used to follow certain conduct procedures which were mandatory for the people to follow.

As the British came to India, they codified each judicial practice that was part of the oral legacy and those rules were then carried forward by Independent India. The Advocates Act, 1961 laid down the rules which are supposed to be followed by the practitioners in India, and at the same time, it decided the conduct of lawyers and other layman appearing before the court should be in a uniform manner and a proper sanction will be made against them if the rules were not followed as mentioned.

From the beginning, there has been a silent conflict between authority and rights and the judges have thrown the light upon this from time to time. The court etiquette is always considered to be a hot issue of discussion among the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, where the judges always upheld that the frequent use of “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” basically casts a colonial shadow upon the Indian Judiciary, which in turn is a legacy of British period in India. The word has its connection from France and Britain, where the word is derived from the French word, millourt, which was specifically used for the rich person and the nobility in 1430. Later in the year 1598, the British adopted the word for addressing the members of the House of Lords and the English nobility wherein the judges were also included.

The matter has been discussed from time to time in order to rid of the colonial shadow from the judicial system. As we look into various perspectives, we find that there have been various observations related to addressing the judges and it has also been condemned by sundry judges and they have questioned the usage of “Your Lordship” or “Milord” and preferred the more decent way of addressing the judges as according to them, this particular practice defies the purpose of Article 14, i.e., Right to Equality and should be replaced by a more appropriate word. It is not for the first time that this has been discussed by a judge in the middle of the hearing, there are many instances from the past which throws light upon the intensity of the matter and how the Judiciary has handled the same.

Usage After Independence

After the historic “tryst with destiny”, the Court decided to continue with the provisions that were followed during colonial rule.

No major amendments were made to “Indianise” the court mannerism. A few years later, a Chief Justices’ Conference was organised in 1971 where Justice Rajinder Sachar, then Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and then Chief Justice of India, Sarva Mitra Sikri, included this topic for discussion in the conference and it was resolved to address judges as “Your Honour”. There have been debates over this issue from there onwards, but the train does not move forward as ambiguity remains the same.

Furthermore, as we move forward in time, various High Courts have raised this issue ranging from Madras, Delhi, Rajasthan to Karnataka, where the judges have ruled out that instead of using Your Lordship and My Lord, the addressing notion should be Your Honour. The term Your Honour has been in the spotlight throughout this issue as the Bar Council of India came up with a notice in 2006, named “How to Address the Court?” under the Section 49(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the given rule stated that:

“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 Colonial past, it is proposed to incorporate the above rule showing respectful attitude to the Court.”

Two Delhi High Court judges, Justices Ravindra Bhatt and S. Muralidhar used to include every day in their cause list that the advocates must address the judges as Your Honour or simply, Sir. This practice was then adopted by Justice K. Chandru of Madras High Court as well.

Recently, all legal arenas have raised their ears when Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde, interrupted the petitioner in the middle of the hearing stating that he should use the correct mode of addressing as when he is using “Your Honour” as a mode, he is referring to Supreme Court of America. This is not the first time the Former Chief Justice is involved with the issue of addressing. In 2014, a writ petition was filed by a lawyer Shiv Sagar Tiwari, where the bench included Justice SA Bobde but was presided by Justice HL Dattu, where the bench allowed to argue in person but the writ petition was dismissed.

The matter was first listed before a bench of Chief Justice P. Sathashivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. When an allegation was made that petitions in the Supreme Court had been dismissed because he had not used the honorific “Lordship’. Justice Gogoi recused himself and the case was directed to be listed before another bench and then the Court stated that in a rather scolding manner:

“When did we say it is compulsory? You can only call us in a dignified manner. To address the court what do we want? Only a respectable way of addressing. You call us your honour, it is accepted. You call lordship it is accepted. How can this negative prayer be accepted by us? Don’t address us as Lordship. We don’t say anything. We only say address us respectfully. How can we direct the high courts on your prayers? It is obnoxious. It is the choice of the lawyer to address the court. Why should we say that the brother judge should not accept being addressed as lordship? We have not taken exception when you call us ‘Sir.”

Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court went one step ahead and passed a resolution stating that all lawyers are requested to shed the practice of Your Lordship and adopt the terms such as Your Honour, Sir or Shrimanji, and this was done by none other than Justice Ravindra Bhatt, who then became the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court but again the questions were raised when it was informed that the judges of the District Courts in State were being addressed as “Hukum”, which is even parallel to Your Lordship.

Following this path, Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, TBN Radhakrishna, also wrote a letter to subordinate courts to address him as Sir, instead of Your Lordship or My Lord. The Kerala and Punjab & Haryana Bar Associations also came up with resolutions to do away with the colonial practices.

Some Foreign Perspectives

The judges of Singapore and the United States of America are also addressed as Your Honour, and the system of bowing down to judges is considered as a revered gesture to the Court rather than the presiding judge himself. The Queensland court has court etiquette of calling the magistrate or judge ‘Your Honour’.

CONCLUSION

There is much ambiguity regarding the addressing practice of judges in India as there is no specific rule regarding the same. Each and every judge have their own perspective and even if agree at some point, the implementation of the same lacks.

In conclusion, even if we rely on the term “Sir”, and dive deep into it, we find that its roots come from the French word, sire, which is again parallel to the expression of “My Lord”. So, the question still remains the same, the Honourable Court to confirm the mode of address- and whether the same needs to be uniform.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR SNEHAL ASTHANA Law Intern, Indian Law Watch (March-April, 2021) Sixth Semester, Third Year BA LLB((H) USLLS, GGSIPU. She was an Editor of School News Letter, Milestones, in the year 2017-18. Stood 2nd in 12th std in Humanities and awarded top scorer in Economics. Took part in school debate competition and won first prize and won the prize in self composed poem recitation in school in the year 2015. Took part in the Mock parliament competition and won best speaker award.A research paper presented on the topic “On Line Dispute Resolution-Application" Won first prize in Poetry Competition held by the Abhivyakti Club, USS. Participated in National Client Counseling Competition organized by NorthCap University.