Why is the Kerala government mandating Ministers to be addressed as 'Honourable'?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Kerala government's new directive requiring Ministers to be addressed as "Bahumanapetta" has sparked significant debate. Critics question its constitutional validity and implications for democratic interactions. As this directive unfolds, all eyes are on the upcoming Assembly session and how the opposition will respond.
Key Takeaways
- The Kerala government has mandated that Ministers be called "Bahumanapetta".
- Critics question the constitutional validity of this directive.
- The emphasis on titles may detract from efficient governance.
- This move contrasts with trends towards simplification in democratic institutions.
- Upcoming Assembly sessions may address this contentious issue.
Thiruvananthapuram, Sep 10 (NationPress) The Kerala government has recently issued a directive mandating that Ministers be referred to as "Bahumanapetta" (Honourable) in all official replies to complaints and applications, according to officials.
The Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department published the circular on August 30, enforcing that Ministers' names must be prefixed with this honorific even in communication related to grievance redressal.
This circular, endorsed by an Under Secretary, has been disseminated to all government departments, district collectors, and heads of offices, instructing them to ensure adherence to this new protocol.
Officials responding to complaints or applications directed to Ministers are also required to comply with this rule, the circular stated.
The initiative has ignited fierce criticism, raising concerns about its constitutional legitimacy.
Article 18 of the Constitution abolishes titles, save for military or academic distinctions, which reflects the framers' vision that respect for leaders should arise from their service and behavior, not from obligatory honorifics.
Critics assert that compelling citizens to use "Bahumanapetta" when filing complaints signifies a regressive mindset and undermines the essence of constitutional democracy.
Observers note that this directive emerges at a time when judicial and legal systems across India are moving away from colonial-era practices laden with excessive honorifics.
Senior bureaucrats indicate that the Kerala government's order appears to contradict the trajectory of reform.
"Instead of concentrating on efficiently addressing complaints, the focus has shifted to preserving ministerial prestige," commented a former official.
Critics caution that such mandates could alienate the general public by favoring protocol over accountability.
The controversy has ignited a broader conversation regarding the appropriateness of mandating respect through titles, especially as democratic institutions globally are consciously moving toward simplification and equality in official interactions.
Attention is now directed toward the upcoming Assembly session, commencing next week, to see how the Congress-led Opposition will tackle this issue, as they have consistently criticized Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan for his autocratic governance style.
Point of View
It's crucial to recognize the balance between respect for elected officials and the foundational principles of democracy. The Kerala government's directive raises valid concerns regarding its implications for citizen engagement and accountability. As the discourse continues, the focus should remain on fostering a government that prioritizes service over titles.
NationPress
10/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the new directive from the Kerala government entail?
The directive mandates that all Ministers be addressed as "Bahumanapetta" (Honourable) in official replies to complaints and applications.
Why is this directive being criticized?
Critics argue that the directive undermines constitutional principles by enforcing titles that could detract from the spirit of equality in democracy.
What does Article 18 of the Constitution state?
Article 18 abolishes titles other than military or academic distinctions, promoting the idea that respect should come from service and conduct.
How has the public responded to the directive?
Many citizens and critics have expressed concern that the directive prioritizes ministerial prestige over meaningful engagement with the electorate.
What implications does this directive have for democratic practices?
The directive may alienate citizens and complicate the relationship between government officials and the public, potentially hindering accountability.
