Article 18: Titles

18(2), acceptance by a citizen. No citizen of India shall accept ANY TITLE from ANY FOREIGN STATE. Note that this clause is absolute: no consent of the President can cure it, unlike clauses (3) and (4).

18(3), acceptance by a non-citizen holding office here. No person who is not a citizen shall, WHILE HOLDING an office of profit or trust under the State, accept a title from a foreign State WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PRESIDENT. The condition is the holding of the office; a non-citizen not holding one is outside the clause.

18(4), presents and offices. No person holding any office of profit or trust 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. This clause is wider than the others in subject matter, because it is not confined to titles, and narrower in application, because it attaches only to office-holders.

Notice the pattern. The prohibition is absolute where it is easiest to police and the harm greatest, that is on the State conferring and on the citizen accepting; and it is subject to Presidential consent where a legitimate occasion may arise, that is for foreign nationals in Indian service and for gifts and offices.

The leading case

In Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, (1996) 1 SCC 361; AIR 1996 SC 770, decided on 15 December 1995 by a Constitution Bench of five, A.M. Ahmadi C.J.I. Facts. Writ petitions challenged the National Awards, the Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, as "titles" forbidden by article 18(1), and complained that they were being conferred liberally on undeserving persons.

Held. 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. If a recipient uses one that way, the DEFAULTER SHOULD FORFEIT THE AWARD, by the procedure in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications creating the awards.

The reasoning. Hereditary titles conflict with equality because they create a separate identifiable class with special privileges; non-hereditary titles carrying suffixes or prefixes have the same effect in lesser degree; and what article 18(1) interdicts is the use of a designation as part of a name, on the pattern of "Sir". Since the National Awards are not titles of nobility and are not to be used as suffixes or prefixes, they are outside the prohibition.

On the argument about misuse. It was contended that the purpose of the awards had been diluted and that they were granted liberally to the undeserving; the Court noted the Bill introduced by ACHARYA KRIPALANI to abolish the decorations, and that he had chaired the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights where article 18(1) was formulated, so that he was fully aware of its import. But it held it AXIOMATIC THAT THE MISUSE OF A CONCEPT DOES NOT CHANGE ITS INHERENT NATURE.

And it criticised the selection process, which is the half of the judgment answers usually omit. The guidelines in the Home Ministry's communique were held EXTREMELY WIDE, IMPRECISE, AMENABLE TO ABUSE AND WHOLLY UNSATISFACTORY for the objective they sought to achieve; there was NO LIMIT on the maximum number of awards in a year or in any category, although the Prime Minister's Committee on Awards and Honours of 1948 had recommended limits and most countries provide them, so that the importance of the awards is not diluted. The Court suggested a NATIONAL COMMITTEE constituted by the Prime Minister in consultation with the President, including the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee and the Leader of the Opposition, with corresponding State committees to recommend names; that no award be conferred except on the National Committee's recommendation, with the approval of the Prime Minister and the President; and that the total number of awards in a year SHOULD NOT EXCEED FIFTY. The writ petitions were disposed of.

A worked example

Consider four situations under article 18.

A State Government confers the designation "Rajya Ratna" on a citizen, to be used before their name. That is a title conferred by the State, and it is neither a military nor an academic distinction. Article 18(1) forbids it, and the vice is precisely the use before the name.

A citizen of India is knighted by a foreign State and uses the style. Article 18(2) forbids the acceptance, absolutely, and no Presidential consent is available.

A foreign national serving as a professor in a State university accepts a foreign decoration. Article 18(3) applies, because he holds an office of profit or trust under the State; he needs the consent of the President. If he held no such office, the clause would not touch him.

An Indian civil servant is given a valuable gift by a foreign government while on an official visit. Article 18(4) applies: no person holding an office of profit or trust under the State shall accept any present, emolument or office of any kind from or under any foreign State without the consent of the President.

And a recipient of the Padma Shri who signs their name with the award before it. On Balaji Raghavan the awards are not titles and may be conferred, but they are NOT TO BE USED AS SUFFIXES OR PREFIXES, and a defaulter should forfeit the award under Regulation 10 of the relevant notification.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the National Awards are unconstitutional. Balaji Raghavan held they are not titles within article 18(1).

It does not mean they may be used freely. They should NOT be used as suffixes or prefixes, and a defaulter should forfeit the award.

It does not mean a military or academic distinction is a title. Article 18(1) excepts both in terms.

It does not mean article 18(2) admits an exception. A citizen may not accept a foreign title at all; the Presidential consent in clauses (3) and (4) does not extend to it.

And it does not mean the Court approved the selection process. It called the guidelines extremely wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory, and suggested a National Committee and a cap of fifty awards a year.

Quick revision

Article 18(1): no title, not being a MILITARY OR ACADEMIC DISTINCTION, shall be conferred by the State. 18(2): no citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State; absolute. 18(3): no non-citizen holding an office of profit or trust under the State shall accept a title from a foreign State without the consent of the President. 18(4): no person holding an office of profit or trust under the State shall accept any PRESENT, EMOLUMENT OR OFFICE of any kind from or under any foreign State without the consent of the President.

Balaji Raghavan, 15 December 1995, Constitution Bench: the National Awards do not amount to titles within article 18(1) and should not be used as suffixes or prefixes; a defaulter should forfeit the award under Regulation 10 of the notification creating it. Reasoning: hereditary titles conflict with equality by creating a separate identifiable class with special privileges, and non-hereditary titles carrying suffixes or prefixes have the same effect in lesser degree; the misuse of a concept does not change its inherent nature. Criticism: the Home Ministry's guidelines are extremely wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory, with no limit on numbers; a National Committee suggested, constituted by the Prime Minister in consultation with the President and including the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice or his nominee and the Leader of the Opposition, with State committees recommending names, and a cap of fifty awards a year.

Test yourself

1. Reproduce article 18(1) and name its exceptions. "No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State." The exceptions are a military distinction and an academic distinction.

2. Which clause is absolute, and which admit of Presidential consent? Article 18(2), forbidding a citizen from accepting a title from a foreign State, is absolute. Articles 18(3) and 18(4) permit the acceptance with the consent of the President.

3. What does article 18(4) cover that the other clauses do not? A PRESENT, EMOLUMENT OR OFFICE of any kind from or under a foreign State, and not merely a title; but it binds only a person holding an office of profit or trust under the State.

4. Are the Bharat Ratna and the Padma awards titles? No. Balaji Raghavan held that the National Awards do not amount to titles within article 18(1), on the condition that they are not used as suffixes or prefixes.

5. What happens if a recipient uses one as a prefix? The defaulter should FORFEIT the award, by the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications creating the awards.

6. Why does the Constitution forbid titles at all? Because a hereditary title creates a separate, identifiable class distinct from the rest of society with access to special privileges, which conflicts with the principle of equality; and a non-hereditary title carrying a suffix or prefix has the same effect in lesser degree.

7. What did the Court say about the selection of recipients? That the Home Ministry's guidelines were extremely wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory, with no limit on the number of awards in a year or in a category; and it suggested a National Committee including the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee and the Leader of the Opposition, State committees to recommend names, conferment only on the National Committee's recommendation with the approval of the Prime Minister and the President, and a total of not more than fifty awards a year.