# BALAJI RAGHAV AN S.P. ANAND v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1995] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 694
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1995-12-15
- **Bench:** Am. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, N.P. Singh Ands. Saghir Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/balaji-raghav-an-s-p-anand-v-union-of-india-13727
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 18(1) and 51-A(j)
Titles-Award of-Prohibition against-Exception-Only in respect of
military and academic distinctions-Position in other countries discussed-National Awards--Hereditaiy titles of nobility and their use of suffixes or prefu:es--Prohibited-Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards-Do not
amount to titles and are not to be used as suffu:es or prefu:es--Such awards
D are not discriminatory but necessary to recognise excellence in peiformance-17ie guidelines for selection of recepients--Amenable to abuse and
wholly unsatisfact01y-Number of Awards should be restricted-Formation of
high powered committees at the National and State levels suggested. J'ublic
Interest Litigation-Case transferred from High Coult-A public interest
litigant cannot choose his forum-Once a case is transferred to the Supreme
E Coult, he must appear before it--Litigants must confnnn to the time schedule
fu:ed by the Coult-Practice and Procedure.
F
Words and Phrases ·_.
Title-Meaning of in the context of Alticle 18(1) of the constitution of
India.
The two petitions which were filed in the High Court sought to
prevent the respondent fror.i conferring any of the National Awards. The
High Court restrained the respondent from so conferring. The respondent
filed petitions before this Court seeking to transfer the cases and this
G Court transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself. The last date for
submission of written briefs by both sides was fixed and each side was
allotted time for oral arguments. One of the petitioners did not present
himself before the Constitution Bench and no arguments were advanced
on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion of the hearing and the
H judgment being reserved, he sent communications requesting that his
694
BALAIIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.
695
petition should be delisted or else he should be given a hearing by the A
Constitution Bench.
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that Article
18(1) of the Constitution did not define, the words "titles" and "distinction";
that the word "till~' should be given the widest possible meaning and
amplitude; that since the only exception to this rule has been carved out B
in respect of military and academic distinctions, it follows that all other
/
distinctions were impliedly prohibited; and that the National Awards made
distinctions acto1.'ing to rank which was clearly violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
c
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that almost every
countri in the world followed the practice of conferring awards; that the
appel\;ltions which appeared .as prefixes or suffixes were sought to be
interdicted by Artide 18(1) of the Constitution; that since the National
Awards were not titles of Nobility and were not to be used as sullixes or
prefixes, they were not prohibited by Article 18 of the Constitution; and D
that guidelines for selection of probable recepients were extremely wide,
imprecise .and amenable to abuse.
Disposing of the petitions, this Court,
HELD : By the court : 1. It is clear that in enancting Article 18(1), E
the framers of the Constitution sought to put an end to the practice
followed by the British in respect of conferment of titles. They, therefore,
prohibited titles of nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or
prefixes as they result in the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens.
However, the framers did not intend that the State should not officially F
recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. They, however, mandated. that the honours conferred by the State should not be used as
sullixes or prefixes i.e., as titles, by the recepients. (713-D-E]
2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around the
world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose Con- G
stitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the
practice of regularly conferring civil awards. (713-F]
3. The National Awards are not violativ

## Text

_Characters 0–39,979 of 58,030. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39979 for what follows._

A
B
c
BALAJI RAGHAV AN
S.P. ANAND
v.
UNION OF INDIA
DECEMBER 15, 1995
[AM. AHMADI, CJ, KULDIP SINGH, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,
N.P. SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 18(1) and 51-A(j)
Titles-Award of-Prohibition against-Exception-Only in respect of
military and academic distinctions-Position in other countries discussed-National Awards--Hereditaiy titles of nobility and their use of suffixes or prefu:es--Prohibited-Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards-Do not
amount to titles and are not to be used as suffu:es or prefu:es--Such awards
D are not discriminatory but necessary to recognise excellence in peiformance-17ie guidelines for selection of recepients--Amenable to abuse and
wholly unsatisfact01y-Number of Awards should be restricted-Formation of
high powered committees at the National and State levels suggested. J'ublic
Interest Litigation-Case transferred from High Coult-A public interest
litigant cannot choose his forum-Once a case is transferred to the Supreme
E Coult, he must appear before it--Litigants must confnnn to the time schedule
fu:ed by the Coult-Practice and Procedure.
F
Words and Phrases ·_.
Title-Meaning of in the context of Alticle 18(1) of the constitution of
India.
The two petitions which were filed in the High Court sought to
prevent the respondent fror.i conferring any of the National Awards. The
High Court restrained the respondent from so conferring. The respondent
filed petitions before this Court seeking to transfer the cases and this
G Court transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself. The last date for
submission of written briefs by both sides was fixed and each side was
allotted time for oral arguments. One of the petitioners did not present
himself before the Constitution Bench and no arguments were advanced
on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion of the hearing and the
H judgment being reserved, he sent communications requesting that his
694
BALAIIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.
695
petition should be delisted or else he should be given a hearing by the A
Constitution Bench.
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that Article
18(1) of the Constitution did not define, the words "titles" and "distinction";
that the word "till~' should be given the widest possible meaning and
amplitude; that since the only exception to this rule has been carved out B
in respect of military and academic distinctions, it follows that all other
/
distinctions were impliedly prohibited; and that the National Awards made
distinctions acto1.'ing to rank which was clearly violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
c
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that almost every
countri in the world followed the practice of conferring awards; that the
appel\;ltions which appeared .as prefixes or suffixes were sought to be
interdicted by Artide 18(1) of the Constitution; that since the National
Awards were not titles of Nobility and were not to be used as sullixes or
prefixes, they were not prohibited by Article 18 of the Constitution; and D
that guidelines for selection of probable recepients were extremely wide,
imprecise .and amenable to abuse.
Disposing of the petitions, this Court,
HELD : By the court : 1. It is clear that in enancting Article 18(1), E
the framers of the Constitution sought to put an end to the practice
followed by the British in respect of conferment of titles. They, therefore,
prohibited titles of nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or
prefixes as they result in the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens.
However, the framers did not intend that the State should not officially F
recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. They, however, mandated. that the honours conferred by the State should not be used as
sullixes or prefixes i.e., as titles, by the recepients. (713-D-E]
2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around the
world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose Con- G
stitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the
practice of regularly conferring civil awards. (713-F]
3. The National Awards are not violative of the principles of equality
as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the
Constitution speaks of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. It
is necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to
recognise excellence in the performance of these duties. [714-C]
B
4. The National Awards do not amount to "titles' within the meaning
of Article 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. Bharat
Ratna and Padma awards are not "titles' within the meaning of Article 18
of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens for
exceptional and distinguished services rendered in the field of art, literature, science and other fields. These awards are national in character and
C only those who have achieved distinction at national level can be con·
sidered for these awards. [715-A. 713-G]
5. The guidelines for selection of probable recepients are extremely
wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory for the
important objective that they seek to achieve. The existing procedure for
D selection of candidates is wholly vague and is open to abuse at the whims
and fancies of the persons in authority. Conferment of Padma awards
without any firm guidelines and fool-proof method of selection is bound to
breed nepotism, favouritism, patronage and even corruption. [715-C]
E
F
G
6. The fixing of criteria, which will ensure that the recepients of these
awards are subjected to feelings of respect rather than suspicion, need to
be examined by a high level Committee that may be appc!nted by the Prime
Minister in consultation with the President of India. The Committee may
keep in view that the number of Awards should not be so large as to dilute
their value. The number of awards under each category must be curtailed
to preserve their prestige and dignity. In any given year the awards, all put
together, may not exceed fifty. [715-E-F]
(Per Ahmadi, CJ. for himself and Jeevan Reddy, N.P. Singh and S.
Saghir Ahmad, JJ)
1.1. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum. Once the case
stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements to
present himself and advance arguments before it. A Constitution Bench
cannot be expected to fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each
and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule fixed by
H the Court. [701-F]
BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.O.I.
697
1.2. Tuo views on the proper interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge: A
(1) The first is that the word 'title' in Article 18(1) is nsed in an
expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, orders, decorations or
titles of any sort whatsoever, except those that qualify as military or
academic distinctions. [707-A)
(2) The second is that what is sought to be prohibited are titles of
nobility and those that carry suffixes or prefixes, which violate the concept
of equality by creating a separate class. According to this view, the words
"military or academic distinction" were added by way of abundant caution.
B
It was not meant to prevent the State from honouring or recognizing C
meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens. [707-B]
2.1. It is clear that in enacting Article 18(1), the framers of the
Constitution sought to put an end to the practice followed by the British
in respect of conferment of titles. They, therefore, prohibited titles of
nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or prefixes as they result in D
the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. However, the framers
did not intend that State should not officially recognise merit or work of
an extraordinary nature. They, however, mandated that the honours conferred by the State should not be used as suffixes or prefixes i.e., as titles,
by the recepients. [713-D-E)
E
2.2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around
the world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose
Constitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the
practice of regularly conferring civil awards. While other Constitutions
also prohibit the conferment of titles of nobility, ours may perhaps be F
unique in requiring that awards conferred by the State are not to be used
as suffixes or prefixes. In France, the Palmes Academiques is awarded for
merit in teaching· and for literature, science and other cultural activities.
The Canadian Government established the Order of Canada in 1967 and
it is awarded for a wide variety of fields including agriculture, ballet, G
medicine, philanthropy, etc. [713-F-G]
2.3. The National Awards do not amount to "titles" within the meaning of Article 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes, and
are not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed by the
provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality does not mandate H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the Constitution speaks
of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. In this context Ar Ude
51A clause (j) exhorts every citizen "to strive towards excellence in all
spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly
rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement". It is therefore,
B necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to
recognise excellence in the performance of these duties. [715-A, 714-C]
Co11stitutio11 Assembly Debates Vol. III and VII; 77ie Framing of
India's Constitution by B. Shiva Rao, Danzing Co11stitutio11, The Constitution
of United States of Ameiica, 1787; The Co11stitutio11 of Japa11, 17ie ConstituC tion of the Republic of Ireland, 1937; The Constitution of Philippin11es, 1935;
The Constitution of Iceland, 1944 and 1he Weimar Constitution, 1919,
referred to.
3.1. The guidelines for selection of probable recepients are extremely
wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse aud wholly unsatisfactory for the
D important objective that they seek to achieve. There are no limitations
prescribed for the maximum number of awards that can be granted in a
given year or· the maximum number that is permissible in each category.
Most countries have provided for such limitations in respect of their civil
awards. That is for the obvious reason that the importance of the awards
E is not dilnted. [715-C-D]
3.2. The fixing of criteria, which will ensure that the recepients of
these awards are subjected to feelings of respect rather than suspicion,
need to be examined by a high level Committee that may be appointed by
the Prime Minister in consnltation with the President of India. The ComF mittee may keep in view that the number of Awards should not be so large
as to dilute their value. [715-E-F]
(Per Ku/dip Singh, J.-concuning)
1.1. Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not "titles" within Article
G 18 of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens
for exceptional and distinguished services rendered in art, literatnre,
science and other fields. These awards are national in character and only
those who have achieved distinction at national level can be considered for
these awards. The existing procedure for selection of candidates is wholly
H vague and is open to abuse at the whims and fancies of the persons in
BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.
699
authority. Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and A
fool-proof method of selection is bound to breed nepotism, favouritism,
patronage and even corruption. [716-A-B, DJ
1.2. There has been no application of mind at all by the successive
Governments and the system of giving Padma awards is getting
degenerated with the passage of time. It has already reached a point where B
political or narrow group interests are being rewarded by those in office
for the time being. [717 -Fl
Parliamentary Debates, November 27, 1970, referred to.
2.1. To ensure that Padma awards are truely national in character
and above party and political considerations, it is suggested that a committee at national level be constituted by the Prime Minister of India in
consultation with the President of India.which may include, among other,
the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee and
c
the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. At the State level similar D
committees may be framed by the Chief Minister of the State in consultation with the Governor. The Committee may, among others, include
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Chief Justice of the State or his
nominee and the leader of the Opposition. [718-C-D]
2.2. The function of the State committees may only be to recommend E
the names of the persons, who in their opinion deserve a particular award.
The final decision shall have to be taken by the National Committee on
Awards. No award should be conferred except on the recommendation of
the National Committee. The recommendation must have.the approval of
the Prime Minister and the President of India. The number of awards F
under each category must be curtailed to preserve their prestige and
dignity. In any given year the awards, all put together, may not exceed fifty.
[718-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case (C) No.
9of1994.
G
With
Transferred Case (C) No. 1 of 1995.
(Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution of India.)
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
M.K. Banerjee, Attorney General of India, N. Santosh Hegde, Tony
B
c
George, Romy Chacko, N. Sudhakaran, P. Parmeswaran and Bijan Ghosh
for the appearing parties.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
AHMADI, CJI : 1. The short but interesting question that arises for
our consideration is :
"Whether the Awards, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma
Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called "The National
Awards") are "Titles" within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the
Constitution of India ?"
2. Before dealing with the legal aspects of the question at issue, we
may briefly set out the factual matrix of the two cases. The two petitions
which have given rise to this issue were filed in the High Courts of Kerala
D and Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), respectively. The petitioner in
T.C.(C) No. 9/94, Balaji Raghavan (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 1') ·
had filed O.P. No. 2110/92 (hereinafter called 'the O.P.') on February 13,
1992 before the Kerala High Court. The petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution, sought, by way of a writ of mandamus, to prevent the
respondent from conferring any of the National Awards. The petitioner in
E T.C.(C) No. 1195, S.P. Anand (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 2') filed
Misc. petition No. 1900/92 (hereinafter called 'the M.P.') on August 24,
1992, before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, praying
for the same relief.
p
3. In the Kerala High Court, the two contesting parties filed written
submissions and counters between September 30, 1992 and April 7, 1994.
During this period, the High Court of Kerala did not bear oral arguments
or pass any interim order. However, in the other case, a Division Bench of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), on August 25, 1992,
through an ex-parte order, issued notice to the respondent and also
G restrained it from conferring on any person or persons any of the National
Awards, until further orders. The respondent filed T.P. (C) Nos. 6 & 7
before this Court, seeking to transfer the case and to vacate the ex-parte
order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated August 25, 1992. On
January 8, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court, while refusing to transfer
H the case to itself, directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to give its
l
'
BALAJI RAGHA VAN S.P. ANAND v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, CJ.]
701
decision on the application filed by the respondent for vacating the ex- A
parte order, on or before January 20, 1993. On January 20, 1993, a Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vacated its earlier order dated
August 25, 1992. Meanwhile, the respondent filed T.P.(C) No. 811-812/93,
by which it sought transfer of both the O.P. and the M.P. to this Court. On
October 29, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter B
be posted before a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India on
January 17, 1994. On that day, a bench of this Court presided over by the
then Chief Justice issued notice in T.P. Nos. 811-812/93 and stayed further
proceedings in both the petitions. Later, on March 7, 1994, this Court
transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself.
4. Thereafter, on September 11, 1995, T.C.(C) Nos. 9/94 and 1/95
were posted before a Division Bench of this Court. The last date for
submission of written briefs by both sides was fixed and each side was
allotted time for oral arguments. While counsel for the petitioner No. 1
c
and the respondent submitted their written briefs within the stipulated D
time, the petitioner No. 2, however, failed to do so. The date for the hearing
before this Constitution Bench was fixed for November 14, 1995. On
October 31, 1995, the petitioner No. 2 was given notice of this fact.
However, he did not present himself before the Constitution Bench and no
arguments were advanced on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion
of the hearing and the judgment being reserved, he sent communications E
dated November 1, 1995 and November 6, 1995, which were received by
the Supreme Court on November 15, 1995 and November 21, 1995 respectively, requesting that his petition should be delisted or else he should be
given a hearing by the Constitution Bench. It is not possible to accede to
his request. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum. Once the F
case stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements
to present himself and advance arguments before it. A Constitution Bench
cannot be expected to fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each
and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule fixed by the
Court. Hence we have refused to entertain his request.
It would now be relevant to notice the events connected with the
institution of the National Awards. It is important to note that a policy of
instituting National Awards and Honours had been adopted even before
G
the Constitution of India was formally drafted. On February 13, 1948, the
Prime Minister's Committee on Honours and Awards was set up under the H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A Chairmanship of the Constitutional Adviser to the Government of India,
Sir B.N. Rau. It's purpose was to recommend the number and nature of
civil and military awards; the machinery for making recommendations for
the granting of these awards; the frequency with which they were to be
awarded, etc. The Committee worked on the premise that orders and
B
c
decorations, carrying no title, were not meant to be prohibited. It submitted
its report on March 9, 1941! and gave extensive suggestions in respect of
each of the subjects upon which it had been required to give its recommendations. Thereafter, in a series of meetings held between May 30, 1941!
and October 29, 1953, the Cabinet had occasion to discuss the nature and
conditions of the proposed National Awards.
6. The National Awards were formally instituted in January, 1954 by
two Presidential Notifications No. l-Pres./54 and No. 2-Pres./54 dated
January 2, 1954 which were subsequently superseded by four fresh Notifications, viz. No. l-Pres./55, 2-Pres./55, 3-Pres./55 and 4-Pres./55 dated
D January 8, 1955. The purpose for which these awards were to be given are
as follows :
E
F
NAME OF THE
AWARD
Bharat Ratna
PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN
For exceptional Service towards the advancement of
art, literature & sicence & in recognition of public
service of the highest order.
Padma Vibhushan For exceptional and distinguished service in any field.
including service rendered by Govt. servants.
Padma Bhushan
Padma Shri
For distinguished service of a high order in any field
including the service rendered by Govt. servants.
For distinguished service in any field including
service rendered by Govt. servants.
The aforementioned Presidential Notifications also provide that any
G person, without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex, shall be
eligible for t11ese awards and also that the decorations may be awarded
posthumously.
7. A press Note was issued by the Government of India on April 17,
H 1968 making it clear that the practice of using Civilian Awards, such as,
'
BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMADl,CJ.j
703
Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, as titles on letterA
heads, invitation cards, posters, books, etc., is against the scheme of the
Government as the awards are not titles and their use along with the names
of individuals is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which has
abolished titles. It was also emphasised in the press note that civilian
awards should not be attached as suffixes or prefixes to the names of the B
awardes to give them the appearance of titles.
8. In the year 1969 and again in the year 1970, the late Acharya J.B.
Kripalani, who was then a Member of the Lok Sabha, moved a non-official
Bill entitled 'The Conferment of Decoration on_ Persons (Abolition) Bill,
1969' for their abolition. In the draft statement of Objects and Reasons C
appended to the Bill, the main points were thus stated :
(a) Although Article 18 had abolished titles, they were sought to be
brought in by the back door in the form of decorations.
(b) The decorations were not always awarded according to merit, D
and the Government of the day is not the best Judge or the merits or the
eminence of the recipient.
(c) These "new titles'' were at first given to very few, exceptional
persons; this small stream had since become quite a flood.
The Bill led to an elaborate debate in Parliament but was ultimately
defeated.
9. On August 8, 1977, the institution of the National Awards was
cancelled, vide Notification No. 65-Pres./77. On .January 25, 1980 the
Government revived these awards by Notification No. 25/Pres./80 which
cancelled the earlier Notification No. 65- Pres./77 dated August 8, 1977.
Since then, the National Awards have been conferred annually on the
Republic Day.
E
F
10. We may now refer to the text of Article 18 of the Constitution G
which reads as follows :
"18. Abolition of titles. - (1) No title, not being a military or
academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.
(2) No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State. H
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A
(3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any
B
office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of the
President any title from any foreign State.
( 4) No person holding any office of profit under the State shall,
without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or
office of any kind from or under any foreign State."
ll. The learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 pointed out that while
Article 18(1) prohibits the conferment of 'titles' by the State with the
exception of military and academic distinctions, it does not define the
C words "titles" and "distinction". In an effort to throw light upon this aspect,
he referred us to the legislative history of the provision. According to him,
the framers of the Constitution had intended to do away with the practice
followed by the British of conferring various 'titles' upon Indian citizens
who curried favour with them. This practice and recipients of the titles had
D
earned the contempt of the people of pre-independent India and hence
such pernicious practices were proposed to be prohibited in Independent
India through 1 his provision. According to hin1, vie\vcd against this background, word 'title' should be given the widest possible meaning and
amplitude in order to give effect to the legislative intent. Since the only
E
F
exception to this rule has been carved out in respect of military and
academic distinctions, it follows that all other distinctions are impliedly
prohibited. We were then referred to several dictionaries to ascertain the
meaning of the words
11Title, "Order",
1'Distinction
11
,
1'Award
11 and "Designation". It was sought to be demonstrated that even the dictionary meaning
of t.he word 'title' is wide enough to encompass all other similar concepts.
12. It was further contended that the National Awards make distinctions according to rank. They are divided into superior and inferior classes
and the holders of Bharat Ratna have been assigned the 9th place in the
Warrant of Precedence (which indicates the rank of different dignitaries
G and high officials of the State). It was pointed out that several recipients
were following the practice of appending these awards to their names,
using them as titles in their letter-heads, publications am! at public functions. This practice has continued unabated despite the fact that the
Govermnent had issued a Press Note in 1968 prohibiting such conduct.
Says the learned counsel, all these factors have resulted in the creation of
H
a rank of persons on the basis of recognition by the State, in the same
BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.O.l.[AHMADl,CJ.]
705
manner as was achieved by the conferment of nobility during the British A
rule. This, according to him, is clearly violative of Article 14 read with the
Preamble to the Constitution which guarantee to every citizen, equality of
status. It was also pointed out that there are no objective guidelines for the
manner in which the recipients are to be chosen and over the years, these
awards have degenerated into rewards proffered by the powers that be i.e., B
the Government of the day, in great numbers, to those who serve their
political ends.
13. The learned Attorney General for India prefaced his arguments
on behalf of the Union of India by stating that almost every country in the
world, including those with republican and socialist constitutions, follows C
the practice of conferring awards for meritorious services rendered by its
citizens. The learned counsel then referred us to several dictionaries for
the meanings of
11T;tle", "Award
11
,
11Distinction", "Decoration
11 and
110rder
11
•
He then staled that, according to the ordinary and contextual meaning in
Article 18, the word "title" means a title of honour, rank, function or office D
in which there is a distinctive appellation. An appellation, according to him,
is a name or title by which a person is called or known, something which
is normally prefixed or suffixed, for example, Sir, KC.LE., Maharaja,
Nawab, Dewan Bahadur, etc. The learned counsel submitted that it is these
appellations that appear as prefixes or suffJXes which are sought to be
interdicted by Article 18(1). Since the National Awards are not titles of E
nobility and are not to be used as suffixes or prefixes, they are not
prohibited by Article 18. In this regard, we were referred to the Press Note
dated April 17, 1968 issued by the Government of India. The learned
counsel further submitted that the words "not being a military or academic
distinction' in Article 18 have been used ex abundanti caute/a. Since
F
military and academic distinctions, such as, General, Colonel, Professor,
Mahavir Chakra, B.A., etc. do carry suffJXes or preflXes, the framers of the
Constitution, by way of abundant caution, expressly mentioned that they
would be exempted. It follows that distinctions which do not carry suffJXes
or prefixes or will not be affected by the interdiction in Article 18( 1). At
this stage, the learned counsel took us through the relevant parts of the G
discussions in the Constituent Assembly that led to the framing of Article
18(1) to support the aforesaid stance.
14. The learned Attorney General then reiterated his argument that
republican nations across the world have similar award for recognizing H
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A meritorious services and these National Awards are not violative of the
right to equality as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. In this context,
we were referred to civil awards instituted and conferred by the United
Kingdom, the United States of America, the Republic of France, the
Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Canada and the former Soviet
B
Union. In response to our query for guidelines that control the manner of
selection of the recipients of these awards, the learned Attorney General
delivered to us a copy of the communique that was sent to him from the
Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard.
15. Mr. Santosh Hegde, Senior counsel, responded to our request to
C act as amicus curiae and advanced arguments before us. He began by
stating that the fact that these awards are being grossly misused had
occasioned one of the writ petitions. He referred us to the views of eminent
authors, Mr. D.D. Basu and Mr. H.M. Seervai on the issue at hand.
Thereafter,· he led us through the relevant parts of the discussions in the
Constituent Assembly before submitting that it is clear that the ConstituD tion does envisage a situation where meritorious services rendered by
individuals are to be recognised by the State, through the conferment of
awards. However, to avoid the criticism of creating of separate class, it
needs to be ensured that these awards are not used as prefJXes or suffixes.
He concurred with the submission of the learned Attorney General that
E the words "military or academic distinction" had been used by way of
abundant caution. Commenting on the misuse of these awards, he submitted that the maximum number of awards that can be conferred should
be specified. He also felt that ordinarily, public servants and civil servants
should not be eligible for these awards, unless there are extraordinary
F
reasons.
16. We may now address the central issue in the case. At the outset,
we may point out that the marginal heading of Article 18, which reads as
!!Abolition of Tit1es" is an incorrect summarization of its contents as it does
not seek to abolish titles granted in the past. Sir Ivor Jennings, the noted
G constitutional lawyer, has described Article 18 as "not a right at all, but a
restriction on executive legislative power."
17. from the aforementioned discussion, two views on the proper
interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge :
H
(1) The first, put forth by the petitioners, is that the word 'title' in
BALAJI RAG HA VAN S.P. ANAND v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, CJ. J
707
Article 18(1) is used in an expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, A
orders, decorations or titles of any sort whatsoever, except those that
qualify as military or academic distinctions.
(2) The second, advanced by the learned Attorney General and Mr.
Santosh Hegde, is that what is sought to be prohibited are titles of nobility B
and those that carry suffJXes or prefJXes, which violate the concept of
equality by creating a separate class. According to this view, the words
"military or academic distinction" were added by way of abundant caution.
It was not meant to prevent the State from honouring or recognizing
meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens.
18. We may now refer to the developments preceding the introduction of Article 18(1) as it presently stands and the debates thereon amongst
the framers of G,_ Constitution. The Constituent Assembly, as we all know,
functioned by constituting Committees which were expected to deliberate
c
and take decisions on specific issues of Constitutional law to be incor- D
porated in the Constitution. On January 21, 1947, three such Committees
were constituted by the Assembly, one of them being the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribals and Excluded Areas
(hereinafter called "The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights").
Thereafter, the Assembly met at regular intervals to discuss the reports
submitted by the various Committees. On August 29, 1947, the Assembly E
appointed a Drafting Committee which was to analyse the reports of these
Committees, take note of the discussions in the Assembly regarding them,
and prepare the text of a Draft Constitution. This Draft Constitution came
to be prepared during February 1948 and on November 15, 1948, the
clause-by-clause discussion of the Draft Constitution began in the AssembF
ly. This process culminated on November 26, 1949 when the Constitution
as settled by the Constituent Assembly was adopted by it.
19. The provision that is now Article 18(1) was discussed and formulated in the report of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights. This
Committee had, in view of its wide agenda, appointed two Sub-Commit- G
tees, one on Fundamental Rights and the other on Minorities. The former
Sub-Committee was chaired by Acharya J.B. Kripalani. On March 25, 1947,
the present Article 18(1) was discussed for the first time in the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights. The agenda for the meeting was the discussion of the note prepared by Mr. K.T. Shah on Fundamental Rights H
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A which contained five clauses relating to the prohibition of, and restrictions
on, the conferment and acceptance of titles, honours, distinctions and
privileges. Clause 3 of this note read :
B
c
"No artificial or man-made distinction between citizen and citizens,
by way of titles, honours, privileges - whether personal or inheritable, - shall be recognised by and enforceable under this
constitution, or laws made thereunder : provided that academic
degrees, official titles, or popular honorifics, whether of Indian or
foreign origin, or conferment, may be permitted in so far as they ·
create no privileged class or heritable distinction."
At the meeting, Mr. K.T. Shah formally proposed the abolition of
titles and the privileged class of title holders. In the final report of the
Sub-Committee, the relevant part of Clause 8 read as follows :
"No titles except those denoting an office or a profession shall be
D
conferred by the Union."
20. This clause was considered by the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights on April 21, 1947. A number of influential members
expressed reservations about the abolition of titles. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari
E suggested that it should be left open to the legislature to deddt from time
to time whether titles are good or bad. He stated that, especially if there
was as nationalist, communist or socialist policy, and the profit motive was
removed, there would be a great necessity for creating a new motive in the
form of titles. Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar and Mr. M. Ruthnaswamy
also supported the omission of this clause. The latter stated that equality
F is not opposed to distinction and even in a democracy, it must be provided.
G
H
Mr. K.T. Shah, however, urged that the conferring of titles offended against
the fundamental principle of equality sought to be enshrined in the Constitution. Mr. K.M. Panikkar, while suggesting half-way solution stated :
"Order and decorations are not prohibited. The heritable titles by
the Union undoubtedly create inequality. In the Soviet Union many
encouragements are given on account of certain national policies.
What I am submitti11g is that we must make a clear disti11ction
between titles which are heritable a11d thereby create inequality and
titles give11 by govemments for the pupose of rewarding merit or by
recognising merit. There are two methods that exist. As you know
BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMAD!,0.J
709
one is by title and the other by decoration. What we have to aim A
at ;s really the question of heritable titles and we should see that
provision is made for decorations and various other things because
it is only titles that have been prohibited, not decorations and
honours.
11
(Emphasis added) B
Pressed to a vote, the suggestion that the clause should be omitted was lost
by 14 votes to 10; but Mr. Panikkar's proposal that only heritable titles
should be forbidden was accepted by Mr. Shah and was unanimously
adopted by the Committee. The relevant part of clause 7 of the C
Committee's Interim Report to the Constituent Assembly read :
"No heritable title shall be conferred by the Union."
21. On April 30, 1947, this clause was discussed in the Constituent
Assembly. While moving the clause, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel observed that D
titles were often being abused for corrupting the public life of the country
and, therefore, it was better that their abolition should be provided as a
fundamental right. He informed the Assembly that it had been decided to
drop the word 'heritable' as it had become a matter of controversy. While
moving the amendment, Mr. M.R. Masani stated :
"This will mean that the free Indian State will not confer any titles
of any kind, whether heritable or otherwise, that is, for the life of
the incumbent. It may be possible for the Union to honour some
of its citizens who distinguish themselves in several walks of life
E
like science and the arts, with other kinds of honours not amountF
ing to titles; but the idea of a man putting something before or after
his name as a reward for service rendered will not be possible in a
free India."
(Emphasis added)
While supporting the amendment, Sri Prakasa stated :
"Sir, I should like to make it plain that this clause does not prohibit
even the State from bestowing a proper honour. We are distinguishing between titles and honours. A title is something that hangs
to one's name. I wider.itand it is a British innovation. Other States H
A
B
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
also honour their citizens for good work but those citizens do not
necessarily /Jang their titles to their names as people in Britain or
British-govemed parts of the world do. That is all that this clause
seeks to do . ........... we want to abolish this co"oding, co~pting
practice which makes individuals go about currying favour with
authority to get particular distinctions."
(Emphasis added)
While opposing the amendment, Seth Govind Das and Mr. H.V. Karnath
complained that the clause covered only the future conferment of titles and
C that it was necessary also to abolish titles conferred earlier by the "alien
imperialist Government". Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel in replying to the debate
referred to the point raised by selh Govind Das and Mr. Karnath. Pleading
for forgetting "all about past titles", he said that the Assembly was really
legislating for the future and not for the past; some people who had
obtained titles from the British Government after they had "spent so much"
D and "worked so hard" for them, should be left alone; disturbing their titles
might be "interpreted as a sign of spiteful feeling".
After the acceptance of the amendment moved by Mr. M.R. Masani the
relevant part of the clause read as follows :
E
"No title shall be conferred by the Union."
F
G
22. With a minor modification, the provision appeared as Article
12(1) in the Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee :
"Article 12(1) - No title shall be conferred by the State."
23. The Drafting Committee and its Special Committee, after considering the various comments, suggestions and amendments received on
draft article 12, suggested further amendments. The Constitutional Advisor, Sir B.N. Rau, supported these new amendments and stated :
"Presumably it is not intended that titles such as "Field Marshal",
11Admiral", "Air Marshal
11
,
11Chief Justice" or "Doctor" indicating an
office or profession, should be discontinued. It may be pointed out
that the term "State" as defined includes "all local or other
authorities within the territory of India". Nor, presumably, is it
H
intended to prohibit the award of medals or decorations for gal-
BALAIIRAGHAVAN S.P.ANANDv. U.O.l.