Daily Times

With the recognition of rights, humanity acknowledged their protection. And to protect them, societies established the court system. In the courts, the most noble, honourable, honest, upright, and intelligent persons were and are placed to adjudge and determine the cases. Their nobility demanded respect, and the courtroom required decorum, and therefore the civilised society started calling them in dignified and refined words.

In Pakistan, the common law court system is followed. However, at the district level, judges are addressed with titles of Sir, Madam and Your Honour, while in the higher courts My Lord and My Lady are used. There are some objections, both social and religious, to the words ‘My Lord’.

Foremost, it is pertinent to mention that language is a way to convey the message. It is a method of human communication that consists of words, either spoken or written. Words are those elements of communication that are used to form a sentence. In courts, lawyers are the ones who have the duty to present and convey their client’s case.

Next, before highlighting the objection to the words My Lord, it is appropriate to look at the etymology of the word ‘lord’. The word lord, as a noun, is derived from an old English word ‘hlaford’, which means “master of a household, ruler, feudal lord”. In old English, hlaford is a contraction of earlier word hlafweard, which literally means ‘one who guards the loaves’. As landlord, the word started to be used in the 13th century. For the peers of England, it started to be used around the 14th century. However, as a verb, the word lord in the 13th century became famous in meaning to rule as a lord.

Different titles are used in different countries. In America, Judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are addressed as My Lord, or My Lady or Your Lordship or Your Ladyship, and the justices of the peace are referred as Your Honour. In England, a High Court judge is referred to as My Lord or Your Lordship if male, or as My Lady or Your Ladyship if female. In France, Your Honor is Votre Honneur. In Italian, a judge is addressed as Signor Presidente Della Corte, which means Mr President of the Court. In Spain, judges are addressed as Su Señoría, which translates to Your Honour. In Germany, male judges are addressed as Herr Vorsitzender and female judges are referred to as Frau Vorsitzende, which translates as Mister Chairman or Madam Chairwoman. In Saudi Arabia the word Qazi is used. In Pakistan and India, for judges of higher courts My Lord and Your Lordship are used.

The religious objection-not in strictosensu religious-is based on the confusion, not on the intent of the word My Lord. An educated person understands that it does not refer to God. But here the issue is for the uneducated ones. The literacy rate is around 58 percent; many litigants in the higher courts are incapable of understanding the word My Lord, and thus the confusion. In their schools, they only learn about one ‘true Lord’; here, I am referring to the Lord of the worlds. Although in Islam there is nothing wrong unless it is done with the wrong intention, yet morality demands the eradication of this confusion that laymen often face.

The religious objection-not in strictosensu religious-is based on the confusion, not on the intent of the word My Lord

The ‘social’ objection outweighs the religion-based objection. It is based on the ideology of independence. In India, in 2014, a veteran lawyer, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, 75, filed a public interest litigation in the Indian Supreme Court, seeking the apex court’s direction to strictly prohibit the use of My Lord and Your Lordship in courts. He said, “Using the words My Lord and Your Lordship, which are symbols of slavery, should be strictly prohibited to be used in the courts throughout India, as it is against the dignity of the country.” His objections hold weight.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not agree, and rejected his plea stating: “When did we say it is compulsory? You can only call us in a dignified manner. To address the court what do we want? Only a respectable way of addressing. You call [judges] sir, it is accepted. You call them Your Honour, it is accepted. You call them Lordship, it is accepted. These are some of the appropriate ways of expression that are accepted.”

In Pakistan, in 2012, a similar failed attempt was made in the honourable Lahore High Court. In Malik Allah Yar Khan’s case, the petitioner referred to the Presidential Order No.15 of 1980 wherein it was directed to discontinue the use of the expression of My Lord and Your Lordship in relation to judges of the superior courts of Pakistan. But the court after referring to numerous dictionaries, while dismissing the petition, held that “none of the books of literature or legal background even hinted that the honourable judges who are addressed with the title of ‘My Lord’ or ‘Your Lordship’ are imagined or thought to be involving the touch of godly attributes. The dictionaries of English language also certainly project that when the term ‘lord’ is to be used for God or Jesus Christ in the linguistic sphere, it is to be preceded by stressing article ‘The’. The term ‘Lord’ in its ordinary meanings has reference to the qualities of ability, nobility and learning of the persons who are appointed as honourable Judges of the Superior Courts.”

To conclude, at a glance, what both the courts held is true, yet the objection is not because of the etymology and dictionary meanings. The objection is because after the passage of more than 70 years, the sense of slavery and being slaved is still haunting us. Although the highly educated ones consider this redundant, among the laymen one of the most common objections to be heard is that they do not have anything of their own and when will that change. These feelings must be taken seriously that our citizens still consider that courts’ system is not of their own. It is a borrowed one. In their words: “We are stillslaves.” As mentioned earlier, different countries use different titles as per their customs and traditions, so why shouldn’t we do the same?

The writer is a lawyer and teaches law.