OBJECTION
TO THE WORD ‘MY LORD’
With the
recognition of rights, humanity acknowledged their protection. And to protect
them, the society established the court's system. In the courts, most noble, honorable, honest, upright, intelligent and intellectual persons were and are
placed to adjudge and determine the cases. Their nobility demanded respect and
the courtroom required a decorum. So, the civilized society started calling
them in dignified and refined words. Notwithstanding the religious court
system, by birth, in Pakistan, the common law court system is being followed.
However, at the district level, the judges are called with the title of Sir,
Madam, Your Honor, while in the higher courts My Lord and My Lady are used. There
are a lot of objections, both social and religious, with the word My Lord.
Foremost,
it is pertinent to mention here that the language is a way to convey the
message. It is a method of human communication that consists of words either
spoken or written, and the words are those elements of communication that are
used to form a sentence. In courts, the lawyers are the ones who have this duty
to present and convey their client’s case.
Next, before
to highlight the objection to the word 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, literally
means, one who guards the loaves. Then in a sense landlord, the word started to
be used in the 13th century. While for the peers of England, it started to be
used around in the 14th century. However, as a verb, the word lord in the 13th
century got famous in meaning to rule as a lord.
Furthermore,
different titles are used in different countries. In America Judges of the
Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are addressed as My Lord, or My Lady, or Your
Lordship, or Your Ladyship and the justices of the peace are referred to 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, the
French word of Your Honor, Votre Honneur, is applied. In Italian, you address a
judge as Signor presidente della corte which means Mr. President of the Court.
In Spain, judges are addressed as su señoría, which translates to your honor.
While in Germany the male judges are formally addressed as Herr Vorsitzender
and female judges are referred to as Frau Vorsitzende, which translates as
Mister Chairman or Madam Chairwoman. And in India and Pakistan, for higher
courts’ judges My Lord, Your Lordship is used. In Saudi Arabia, the word Qazi
is used.
The
religious objection—not in stricto senso religious—is based on the confusion
not on the intent of the word My Lord. It is true that an educated person
understands it does not refer to God. But here the issue is for the uneducated
ones. The literacy rate is around 58 percent, among them many litigants (not
well versed in the understanding of the word My Lord) who often visit the
higher courts get confused by listening to these words. While in their
schooling, 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 what justice and morality demand here is simply the
eradication of this confusion, which laymen often face.
The
socio-objection outweigh the religion-based objection. It is based on the
ideology and feelings of independence. In India, in 2014 a veteran lawyer, 75-year-old
advocate Shiv Sagar Tiwari filed public interest litigation in Indian Supreme
Court and sought the apex court's direction to strictly prohibit the use of my
lord and your lordship in courts alleging that "it is against the dignity
of the country." "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 the water. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not agree and
reject his plea by holding that “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 it your honor, it is accepted. You call lordship it is
accepted. These are some of the appropriate ways of expression which is
accepted.”
In
Pakistan, in 2012, a similar failed attempt was made in the honorable Lahore High
Court, Lahore. In Malik Allah Yar Khan’s case, the petitioner also refers 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 the Judges of the
Superior Courts of Pakistan. But the court after referring numerous
dictionaries—while dismissing the petition—held that “none of the books of
literature or legal background even hinted that the honorable 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 the 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, this is true what both courts held, 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, yet among laymen, it is the most common objection to be heard that
“we do not have anything of our own; when will we do?”. And these feelings must
be taken seriously, that our citizens still consider that the courts’ system is
not of their own, it is borrowed one or in their words, “we are still a slave”.
As above mentioned, different countries use different titles as per their
customs and traditions, then why should not we? Last but not least, if by the
stoppage of the usage of the word My Lord, we can gain the ownness of our
citizens, then we should certainly do it.
Hafiz Muhammad Azeem
The writer is an advocate of the High Court and teaches law.
No comments:
Post a Comment