Your Honour, how does this sound?

I would, in this context, like to recapitulate events of over three decades ago. In 1967 the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association held a bar conference which was inaugurated by Justice S.M. Sikri of the Supreme Court. I happened to be the president of that bar association at the time. A resolution was then passed to the effect that judges of the high courts and apex court must be addressed henceforth as ‘Your Honour’, instead of ‘Your Lordship’. The resolution was widely circulated, but nothing came of it.

In February 1971, I was somewhat unwell and had been admitted in AIIMS. A chief justices’ conference was being held in Delhi around the same time. Justice Sikri had become the chief justice of India. Since we were together at the Punjab High Court Bar and I had known him for a while, I took the liberty of writing to him, reminding him of that resolution. It is gratifying to record that the chief justices’ conference did in fact pass a resolution along similar lines.

Yet, despite all this, the use of ‘Your Lordship’ continued — presumably because no one wanted to take the initiative in this somewhat sensitive matter. Sometime in 1972, while I was a junior judge, the then attorney general, C.K. Daphtary, while addressing us used the usual form, ‘My Lord’. I remember lightheartedly asking him why he should do so, when the Supreme Court had decided against its use. Daphtary, a stalwart at the bar and known for his quick 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. I also remember that during one of our full court meetings in the Delhi High Court, one of my senior colleagues half-jokingly, but not without irritation, protested to the chief justice about my stand on the issue. “Have I become a judge at this late age to not be even addressed as ‘My Lord’?” he had asked. The matter was thus laughed out of court and the old practice continued. I also plead guilty that though I was on the bench all these years, I did not stop any lawyer from continuing with the old practice. I must, however, plead in my defence that although I was all for changing the form of address, I could not respond, in my individual capacity, to an issue which concerned the judiciary as a collective.

Today, this form of address survives only in the UK and some Commonwealth countries. In most other courts, including the highest in the US and Europe, Europe, the appellation of ‘My Lord’ has been long replaced by ‘Your Honour’. India, being a republic, requires to make this switch. But it should be done in a sensitive manner, because in reality there is no opposition to such a change. Although the bar, in course of time, will make its decision, I feel it would be better if the initiative were to come from the bench. That would address the fear that such a change would amount to challenging the authority and dignity of judges.

In no way will the dignity and strength of the bench be compromised by changing the form of address. The powers of judges, in court or in terms of protocol, remain the same whether they are addressed as ‘Your Lordship’ or ‘Your Honour’. After all, we do not address our president or prime minister as ‘His Excellency’, as was the custom under the British. We now 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 and stature of these personages have in any way been diluted because of the change in the way they are addressed. The same logic applies to the judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court.

If there has to be a debate on the issue, let it be conducted in a sober, self-introspective and harmonious manner. This should not be a confrontation, nor should it be a matter of scoring points. A deep, mutual respect between the bench and the bar is the surest way of guaranteeing the freedom and stature of the judiciary, which in turn guarantees protection to the citizen against the vagaries and vanities of the executive.

The writer is a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court