Titles like “Lordship” have the potential to unintentionally foster a hierarchy in the courtroom, giving judges the impression that they are superior to ordinary citizens.

There has long been discussion and controversy surrounding the custom of addressing judges in courtrooms. Although some jurisdictions continue to refer to judges by the antiquated term “Lordship,” there is growing agreement that addressing judges as “Sir” or “Madam” is more appropriate in today’s world.

In a recent instance, during a proceeding before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud encountered a lawyer who initially employed the address “Sir” instead of the more customary “Your Lordship.” Recognizing the deviation, the lawyer expeditiously rectified his statement by reverting to “Your Lordship.” To the surprise of some, Chief Justice Chandrachud, rather than adhering to conventional practice, lauded the use of “Sir” and expressed his appreciation for the lawyer’s preference. The lawyer, in response, elucidated that his corporate background had conditioned him to use “Sir,” but he subsequently reverted to the customary address of “Your Lordship.”

The practice of addressing judges as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” in India has historical roots dating back to the British colonial era. During British rule, the British legal system was established in India, and British traditions and forms of address were integrated into the Indian judicial system. After gaining independence in 1947, India continued many of the legal traditions inherited from the British colonial era, including the practice of addressing judges as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship.” This tradition persisted as a mark of respect for the judiciary and as a symbol of continuity with the legal system established during British rule.

Over the years, there have been debates and discussions about whether this practice should be modernized or replaced with more contemporary and gender-neutral forms of address. Some argue that using titles like “Lordship” creates a perception of hierarchy within the courtroom, while others contend that it upholds tradition and maintains the dignity of the judiciary.

In 2006, the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules underwent an amendment with the primary objective of instituting uniform standards of professional decorum for lawyers across the nation. This amendment mandated that lawyers should employ either “Your Honour” or “Your Lordship” when addressing judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, within the BCI Rules Governing Advocates, a new Chapter IIIA was incorporated through a gazette notification in May 2006. This chapter underscored the significance of maintaining a respectful demeanor toward the court and upholding the dignity of the judicial office. It delineated that in the Supreme Court and High Courts, lawyers were obliged to utilize the titles “Your Honour” or “Hon’ble Court”. In contrast, when appearing before subordinate courts and tribunals, lawyers were provided the option to employ the more colloquial address of “Sir” or its regional language equivalent.

In 2014, lawyer Shiv Sagar Tiwari filed a petition before the Supreme Court, seeking the imposition of a consistent standard for addressing judges across all courts in the nation, encompassing both the higher judiciary and the subordinate ranks. Drawing upon the 2006 BCI Rules that prescribed uniform guidelines, Tiwari contended that the customary practice of addressing judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts as “My Lord” and “Your Lordship” should be discontinued.

The apex court, however, refrained from issuing any directive in this regard, opting instead to vest the discretion of address with the lawyers themselves. Nevertheless, it appended a proviso that any mode of addressing the judges must be conducted with an unwavering commitment to preserving the standards of dignity and respect.

However, in 2021, Shrikant Prasad, a law student, submitted a public interest plea to Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde, who was sitting atop a panel of three justices. Chief Justice Bobde made it clear during this hearing that justices of the Indian Supreme Court are not to be addressed as “Your Honour.” He stressed that this title was more appropriate for judges serving on our country’s Supreme Court or for magistrates.

The usage of the term “Lordship” invokes associations with a bygone feudal era, where titles and nobility exerted a considerable influence on societal structures. Within modern democratic contexts, where the rule of law and meritocracy are cherished values, these feudal connotations seem anachronistic and incongruous. By substituting “Sir” for these historical titles, we dispense with these antiquated associations and accentuate the contemporary and democratic character of our legal systems.

Judges can be respectfully addressed as “Sir” while maintaining their dignity and avoiding unduly elevating them above the ordinary. It acknowledges their contribution to the administration of justice as well as the depth of legal knowledge they bring to their roles. In addition, it enables everyone who appears in court to approach the legal system with respect and equality, regardless of their background.

Another significant factor is that addressing judges as “Sir” is gender-neutral. Gender-based divisions were unnecessary when male judges were referred to as “Lordship” and female judges as “Ladyship”. In an era where gender equality is being pushed as the main social objective, using a singular, gender-neutral term like “Sir” is inclusive and appropriate.