The Bar Council of India has decided to invite opinion from the State Bar Councils about the form of address by the Advocates to the Judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court, viz. whether to change the address as at present from “Your Lordship” to “Your Honour”. This exercise was done decades back, though I agree with the relevancy of this exercise being done again because without a specific and clear view taken by the Bar as well as by the judiciary this item will continue wrongly to suggest as if there is a conflict between the views of the Bench and the Bar when in fact there is none. In that connection, I would like to recapitulate events almost over 3 decades back.
In 1967-68, the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association held a Bar Conference which was inaugurated by Justice S.M. Sikri of the Supreme Court as he then was, I was the President of the Bar Association at that time. A resolution was passed therein resolving that the form of address be changed from “Your Lordship” to “Your Honour” for High Courts and Supreme Court. This was circulated throughout India. Nothing, however, happened. In 1971 February, I was somewhat unwell and had been admitted in AIMI (I had been a Judge of the Delhi High Court since February 1970). A Chief Justices’ Conference was being held in Delhi. Justice Sikri was at that time the Chief Justice of India. I had known Justice Sikri because we were together at the Punjab High Court Bar and also knew each other much earlier from Lahore. There was, therefore, a kind of informality and I did not feel any hesitation or impropriety in writing to him on an important matter as to the form of address without any risk of being misunderstood. I reminded him of the resolution passed in the above-said conference. It is gratifying to record, that the Chief Justices’ Conference did not take it amiss – but rather passed a resolution that the form of address be changed to “Your Honour”. Notwithstanding this, the use of “Your Lordship”, continued presumably, because most of us were used to this appellation for a long time and junior bar evidently could not have expected to take the initiative for this somewhat sensitive matter.
The dignity and strength of the Bench is not dependent on the form of address – whether they are addressed as “Your Lordship” or “Your Honour” – their powers as judges either in court or in protocol are not in any way Curtailed.
Some time in 1972 while I was sitting in a Bench as a junior Judge, Mr. Daphtary, the Attorney General while addressing us used the usual form of “My Lord”. I distinctly remember to having lightheartedly asking him, “Mr. Daphtary, hasn’t the Supreme Court decided that the form of address will now be different?” Mr. Daphtary, a stalwart at the Bar and known for his quick bantering repartee immediately replied “I know My Lord but notwithstanding any such resolution I will continue to address the Bench by the old form of “My Lord” – the matter was not pursued as I was too junior and my senior did not react, and also because that was not the occasion.
I also remember that during one of our full court meeting in Delhi High Court, one of my senior colleague (Justice Hardy) half jokingly but not without some irritation protested to the Chief Justice and pointing out at me said “What does this young man think, he wrote to the Chief Justice of India to do away with the form of address” and then half jokingly added, “Have I become a judge at this late age (he had about 6 years as a Judge) to be not even addressed as “My Lord”.” The matter was thus laughed out and the old practice continued.
I also plead guilty that though I was on the Bench for all these years, I did not stop any lawyers from continuing with the old practice.
I must, however, plead in self-defence that though I would not and could not make a separate issue of matter which corned collectively the whole of judiciary, and my taking it up separately was likely to have been styled as a cheap gimmick, and also would cause uncalled for strain amongst the colleagues. All of us are continuing the old form of address because it has become a matter of habit and not because of any apprehension that judges might feel annoyed. The laxity thus is of us lawyers.
This form survives only in the U.K. and Commonwealth countries. In Courts, even the highest in USA or in Europe the appellation of “My Lord” is not used. It is “Your Honour”. We being Republic I feel that the change is called for, and the matter needs to be discussed but in a restrained manner because in reality there is no opposition. Though Bar in course of time will take its decision but I do feel that it would be better if the initiative was to come from the Bench, After all the form of address has been a sensitive matter and it should not be seen to give the impression as if change of address is meant to challenge the authority and dignity of the Bench. In fact, the dignity and strength of the Bench is not dependent on the form of address -whether they are addressed as “Your Lordship” or “Your Honour” – their powers as judges either in court or in protocol are not in any way curtailed. After all we do not call our President or Prime Minister as “His Excellency”, as was the custom under British Rule. We only refer to them either as Rashtrapatiji and Pradhaan Mantriji or Hon’ble President and Hon’ble Prime Minister. No one has suggested that the dignity, respect and stature or position of these personages has in any way been diluted, because of change of form of address. Same logic applies to the form of address to the judges of the High Court and Supreme Court. Form of address has no relevance to their stature and position which judiciary undoubtedly enjoys in our Republic and which is amongst the highest and it is the most important wing of the State.
If there is to be a debate, let it be in a sober, self-introspective, and harmonious manner and not as in any way as a matter of confrontation or a matter of scoring points. A deep mutual respect for each other between the Bench and the Bar is the surest way of guaranteeing the freedom and stature of judiciary which in its turn is a guarantee of protection to the citizens against the vagaries and vanities of the Executive.
