‘No, no… all the Lordships left in 1947’: Punjab and Haryana HC Chief Justice Sheel Nagu

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu has subtly signalled a departure from colonial-era courtroom formalities, becoming the latest among judges to express disapproval of being addressed as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” by members of the Bar.

The observation came in open court when an advocate referred to him as “Your Lordship”. Interrupting gently but firmly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice responded: “No, no. All the lordships have left this coast of India in 1947. We are either ‘Sir’ or we are ‘Your Honour’. That’s all.”

Though brief, the remark was unmistakably firm in its constitutional undertone — a reiteration of equality as the bedrock of judicial functioning in a democratic republic.

In doing so, Chief Justice Nagu became part of a discerning tradition within the judiciary that is consciously distancing itself from colonial-era honorifics. Lawyers believe this quiet but deliberate shift is not a rejection of courtroom decorum, but a reaffirmation of constitutional values — favouring egalitarian language over inherited symbols of subjugation. The message, subtle yet firm, is clear: in a democratic republic, respect is owed to the office, not owed through relics of the Raj.

The question of whether judges should be addressed as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” has long sparked debate. While some advocates continue with the convention, others argue that such expressions are outdated symbols of subjugation, out of sync with the values of a sovereign democracy. The Bar, too, has at times weighed in.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association passed a resolution in April 2011, urging members to abandon the “symbol of slavery” and instead address judges as “Sir”. The Association went a step further, warning of “strict action” against those not complying with the directive.

Similarly, in March 2021, Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi of the Punjab and Haryana High Court put it on record that he preferred not to be addressed as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship”.

“What else can be a better indicator of equality before law?” a retired High Court judge remarked, hailing the act as a conscious break from the colonial legal vesture that continues to linger in courtroom practice.

At the apex level, too, discomfort with the usage has surfaced. The Supreme Court itself has clarified on multiple occasions that there exists no compulsion — legal or procedural — to use the term “My Lord”. In fact, the court has stressed that any form of address is acceptable so long as it is respectful and dignified.

During a Supreme Court hearing in 2014, a Bench made it clear that such formality was optional. “When did we say it is compulsory? You can only call us in a dignified manner... Don’t address us as ‘lordship’. We don’t say anything. We only say address us respectfully,” the Bench asserted.

Still, despite judicial and bar endorsements, the practice persists — largely out of habit, reverence, or uncertainty over acceptable alternatives. “But in a system where symbols matter, Chief Justice Nagu’s courtroom correction is not just a refusal of form. It is a quiet reaffirmation of constitutional morality — that dignity in the courtroom need not rest on colonial phrasing, but on mutual respect rooted in equality,” says a senior advocate present during the hearing.