The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [October 13] sought the State's response to a plea filed by a Bengaluru-based advocate, challenging a Government Order dated September 15, 2026, permitting engineers in the State to prefix the honorific 'ER.' before their names.

The Government order on September 15, marking the Engineers' Day, has been challenged before Justice C.M. Poonacha, who had on October 9 issued notice to the State of Karnataka and the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on November 16.

Fort context, Beerappa N, an advocate claiming to be practising since 2018, has challenged Government Order contending that it is ultra vires and void ab initio. The Order issued on the birth anniversary of Bharat Ratna Sir M. Visvesvaraya, permits engineers in Karnataka to use the prefix 'Er.' before their names with official State sanction.

The petitioner has contended that the said order violates Article 18(1) of the Constitution, which specifically bars the State from conferring any title other than a military or academic distinction. According to the petitioner, 'Er.' doesn't fall within these exceptions, and the state order creates a class of citizens bearing a State-sanctioned title. The plea further alleges that by virtue of this conferment, other citizens who bear none of these honorifics are relegated to a lower position, infringing their right to equality of status.

The petition further argues that the Government Order violates Article 14 as there is no intelligible differentia for extending a State-sanctioned honorific to engineers alone and denying the same to the lawyers and other professions. The plea also alleges that the classification bears no rational nexus to the object of the order.

“…The petitioner's professional status rests on a statute, whereas the engineers' prefix rests on a mere executive fiat. An executive instruction cannot do what requires the authority of law, and the Government Order is a colourable exercise of executive power that discriminates against the petitioner”, the plea states.

The petition clarifies further that the grant of any such honorific, if at all possible, ought to be through the channel of the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the statutory body entrusted for the norms and standards of engineering discipline.

According to the petitioner, it is for the AICTE, as the competent expert authority, to consider and recommend whether any honorific or prefix should be associated with the engineering profession. In turn, such recommendation by AICTE ought to be examined by the Centre under whose list matters concerning technical education come. The State Government, on the other hand, has neither been conferred nor delegated any such authority, the petition states.

The Government Order, it is argued, does not disclose why engineers alone have been chosen. It does not clarify as to why professions of equal or greater public importance, such as the Bar, have been left out, the plea adds.

The petitioner has also contended that the Government Order, if allowed to stand, will cause serious discrepancies in society. For example, the State's selective grant of an honorific to one profession would inevitably invite similar demands from doctors, chartered accountants, architects, teachers, and other professions, the plea infers.

“…If every State were to decide for itself which profession should bear which honorific, there would be no uniformity, and titles that are meant to reflect professional standing would become tokens of executive favour. Such a result is contrary to the Preamble of the Constitution, which secures to all citizens equality of status and of opportunity and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual”, the plea states.

Hence the lawyer prays for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Government Order, and seeks an interim stay of the operation of the Government Order pending disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner is represented by Advocate Trivikram S.