Address us respectfully, “your lordship” is not mandatory, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Shiv Sagar Tiwari (Petitioner) seeking to do away with the practice of addressing judges as “Your Lordship” and “My Lord”.

As per this report, a Division Bench comprising Justices HL Dattu and SA Bobde while holding that this negative prayer cannot be allowed also said that it was not compulsory to address the Court as “my lord”, “your lordship” or “your honour”.

“When did we say it is compulsory? You can only call us in a dignified manner…. “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”, the Court said.

The Petitioner had contended that the use of “Your Lordship” and “My Lord” to address judges were relics of British colonial past and amounted to a “disgrace and dishonour of the country”.

He had also placed reliance on Chapter III A of the Bar Council of India Rules which provides that the words “Your Honour and “Hon’ble Court” shall be used by the advocates in the Supreme Court and High Courts with the freedom to use “Sir” in subordinate courts and tribunals. Tiwari had stated that Justice S Murlidhar of Delhi High Court had already acted upon this and affixed a notice in the High Court to the effect that no advocate shall address the Court as “Your Lordship” or “My Lord”.

Based on the above grounds he had prayed for issuance of writ of Mandamus,

“directing all judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and other Judicial Forums not to accept the word[s] My Lord or Your Lordship addressed by anyone appearing before them.”

The matter had initially come up for hearing on November 11, 2013 before another Division Bench comprising Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Tiwari had then alleged that one of his cases had been dismissed by another Bench of the Supreme Court because he had failed to address the Court as “Your Lordship”. He had also stated that Justice Gogoi had been part of that Bench. Justice Gogoi had then recused himself and the Chief Justice had  directed the matter to be listed before another Bench.