Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14
PETITIONER:
BALAJI RAGHAVAN [IN T.C.(C) NO.9/94]S.P. ANAND [IN T.C.(C) N
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1995
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
KULDIP SINGH (J)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
SINGH N.P. (J)
AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 770 1996 SCC (1) 361
JT 1995 (9) 393 1995 SCALE (7)202
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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 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 T.C.(C) No.1/95, 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.
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 hear 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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14
1992, through an ex-parte order, issued notice to the
respondent and also 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 the case to itself,
directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to give its decision
on the application filed by the respondent for vacating the
ex-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 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 and the respondent
submitted their written briefs within the stipulated 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 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 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.
5. 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 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 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 decorations, carrying no title, were not meant to
be prohibited. It submitted its report on March 9, 1948 and
gave extensive suggestions in respect of each of the
subjects upon which it had been required to give its
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14
recommendations. Thereafter, in a series of meetings held
between May, 30, 1948 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.1-
Pres./54 and No.2-Pres./54 dated January 2, 1954 which were
subsequently superseded by four fresh Notifications, viz.,
No.1-Pres./55, 2-Pres./55, 3-Pres./55 and 4-Pres./55 dated
January 8, 1955. The purpose for which these awards were to
be given are as follows:-
NAME OF THE AWARD PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN
----------------- -----------------------------
Bharat Ratna For exceptional Service towards the
advancement of art, literature &
science & 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 For distinguished service of a high
order in any field including the
service rendered by Govt. servants.
Padma Shri For distinguished service in any
field including service rendered by
Govt. servants.
The aforementioned Presidential Notifications also
provide that any person, without distinction of race,
occupation, position or sex, shall be eligible for these
awards and also that the decorations may be awarded
posthumously.
7. A press Note was issued by the Government of India on
April 17, 1968 making it clear that the practice of using
Civilian Awards, such as, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and
Padma Shri, as titles on letterheads, 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
awardees 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
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, and the Government of the day is not the best
Judge of 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, 1997. Since
then, the National Awards have been conferred annually on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14
the Republic Day.
10. We may now refer to the text of Article 18 of the
Constitution 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.
(3) No person who is not a citizen of
India shall, while he holds any 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."
11. 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 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 the
recipients of the titles had earned the contempt of the
people of pre-independent India and hence such pernicious
practices were proposed to be prohibited in Independent
India through this provision. According to him, viewed
against this background, the word ’title’ should be given
the widest possible meaning and amplitude in order to give
effect to the legislative intent. Since the only 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 "Title", "Order", "Distinction", "Award" and
"Designation". It was sought to be demonstrated that even
the dictionary meaning of the 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 the Bharat
Ratna have been assigned the 9th place in the Warrant of
Precedence (which indicates the rank of different
dignitaries 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 and at public functions.
This practice has continued unabated despite the fact that
the Government had issued a Press Note in 1968 prohibiting
such conduct. Says the learned counsel, all these factors
have resulted in the creation of a rank of persons on the
basis of recognition by the State, in the same manner as was
achieved by the conferment of nobility during the British
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14
years, these awards have degenerated into rewards proffered
by the powers that be i.e., 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 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 "Title", "Award",
"Distinction", "Decoration" and "Order". He then stated
that, according to the ordinary and contextual meaning in
Article 18, the word "title" means a title of honour, rank,
function or office 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,
K.C.I.E., Maharaja, Nawab, Dewan Bahadur, etc. The learned
counsel submitted that it is these appellations that appear
as prefixes or suffixes which are sought to be interdicted
by Article 18(1). Since the National Awards are not titles
of 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
cautela. Since military and academic distinctions, such as,
General, Colonel, Professor, Mahavir Chakra, B.A., etc. do
carry suffixes or prefixes, 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 suffixes or prefixes 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
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 awards for recognizing 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 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 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 Constitution 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 a separate class, it needs to be ensured that these
awards are not used as prefixes or suffixes. He concurred
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14
with the submission of the learned Attorney General that 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
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 Titles" is an
incorrect summarization of its contents as it does not seek
to abolish titles granted in the past. Sir Ivor Jennings,
the noted constitutional lawyer, has described Article 18 as
"not a right at all, but a restriction on executive and
legislative power."
17. From the aforementioned discussion, two views on the
proper interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge:-
1) The first, put forth by the petitioners, is that the
word ’title’ in Article 18(1) is used 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.
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 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. 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 the Constitution. The
Constituent Assembly, as we all know, functioned by
constituting Committees which were expected to deliberate
and take decisions on specific issues of Constitutional law
to be incorporated 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 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 Assembly. 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-Committees, 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 which contained five clauses
relating to the prohibition of, and restrictions on, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14
conferment and acceptance of titles, honours, distinctions
and privileges. Clause 3 of this note read:-
"No artificial or man-made distinction
between citizens 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
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 suggested that
it should be left open to the legislature to decide from
time to time whether titles are good or bad. He stated that,
especially if there was a 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 is not opposed to distinction
and even in a democracy, it must be provided. 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 a half-way solution stated:-
"Orders 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 submitting is that
we must make a clear distinction between
titles which are heritable and thereby
create inequality and titles given by
governments for the purpose of rewarding
merit or by recognising merit. There are
two methods that exist. As you know one
is by title and the other by decoration.
What we have to aim at is 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."
(Emphasis added)
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 Committee’s Interim Report to the Constituent Assembly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14
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 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 like science and the arts, with
other kinds of honours not amounting 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 understand
it is a British innovation. Other States
also honour their citizens for good work
but those citizens do not necessarily
hang their titles to their names as
people in Britain or British-governed
parts of the world do. That is all that
this clause seeks to do
........................ we want to
abolish this corroding, corrupting
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. Kamath complained that the clause covered only the
future conferment of titles and 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 Seth Govind
Das and Mr. Kamath. 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" 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 :
"No title shall be conferred by the Union."
22. With a minor modification, the provision appeared as
Article 12(1) in the Draft Constitution prepared by the
Drafting Committee:-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14
"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",
"Admiral", "Air Marshal", "Chief
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 intended to prohibit
the award of medals or decorations for
gallantry, humanitarian work, etc. not
carrying any title."
The Drafting Committee redrafted Article 12(1) to read:
"Hereditary titles or other privileges
of birth shall not be conferred by the
State."
24. It is important to note that when, on November 30,
1948, draft article 12 came up for final discussion before
the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar did not move the
amendment for redrafting clause (1) of Draft Article 12
which had earlier been accepted by the Drafting Committee.
The Draft article, as presented to the Assembly, read
as it was framed originally by the Drafting Committee :-
"1) No title shall be conferred by the State."
Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari sought to add the words "not
being a military or academic distinction" after the word
title in clause (1). He felt that this was necessary,
firstly, because certain types of titles had to be
permitted, the Government having, for example, already
decided to confer certain military distinctions; secondly,
because the State might decide to revive academic titles
like Mahamahopadhyaya, and lastly, because a university
might not be completely divorced from a State in view of the
definition of the latter in draft article 7. (Article 12 of
the Constitution).
25. The amendment moved by Mr.T.T. Krishnamachari was
accepted by the Constituent Assembly on December 1, 1948 and
the final clause [later renumbered by the Drafting Committee
as Article 18(1)] read as it does today.
Note: The quotations that appear in the preceding
paragraphs have been extracted from Volumes III and VII of
the Constituent Assembly Debates and from "The Framing of
India’s Constitution", a study in five volumes, edited by B.
Shiva Rao.
26. We may also refer to the views expressed by Sir B.N.
Rau. As already stated, he was appointed the Chairman of the
Prime Minister’s Committee on Awards and Honours which was
appointed as early as in 1948. At the very first meeting of
the Committee, one of the members raised the issue of the
validity of the proposed awards, in view of Article 12 of
the Draft Constitution which sought to abolish titles. Sir
B.N. Rau, who had, in his capacity as Member of the Drafting
Committee contributed to the discussion regarding Draft
Article 12, pointed out that ’titles’ did not necessarily
include all orders and distinctions. He referred to the U.S.
Constitution which forbids the grant of titles of nobility
but allows decorations such as the Congressional Medal of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14
Honour and the Distinguished Service Cross. He stated that
in Constitutions where orders and decorations as well as
titles are intended to be prohibited, separate mention is
usually made, as had been done in Article 73 and Article 109
of the Danzig and Weimar Constitutions respectively.
27. We may now refer to the constitutional provisions of
certain other countries analogous to Article 18(1) of our
Constitution:
1. Article 73 of the Danzig Constitution (as it then was)
read :
"Titles- with the exception of academic degrees:- shall not
be awarded except when they denote an office or a
profession.
Orders and Decorations may not be awarded by the free State.
No national of Danzig may accept titles or orders.:"
2.The Constitution of The United States
of America, 1787.
Article 1, Section 9 Clause (8) : "No
title of nobility shall be granted by
the United States; and no person holding
any office of profit or trust under them
shall, without consent of the Congress,
accept any present, emolument, office,
or title of any kind whatever from any
King, Prince, or foreign State."
3.The Constitution of Japan.
Article XIV : "Peers and Peerage shall
not be recognised. No privilege shall
accompany any award of honour,
decoration or any distinction, nor shall
any such award be valid beyond the life
time of the individual who holds or
hereafter may receive it."
4.The Constitution of the Republic of
Ireland, 1937
Section 40 (2) : "1. Titles of nobility
shall not be conferred by the State.
2. No title of nobility or of honour may
be accepted by any citizen except with
the prior approval of the Government."
Similar provisions are to be found in :
(i) Article 3, Section 1, Sub-section
(9) of the Constitution of Philippines,
1935;
(ii) Article 78 of the Constitution of
Iceland, 1944;
and
(iii) Article 109 of the Weimar
Constitution, 1919.
28. From the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, 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 the
creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. However,
the framers did not intend that the 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 recipients.
29. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14
regularly conferring civil awards. In the United States, the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, instituted in 1957, honours
Americans and others who make exceptional contributions to
national security or interest, world peace, culture and so
forth. In France, the Palmes Academiques is awarded for
merit in teaching and for literature, science and other
cultural activities. There are also other awards for social
merit, public health, tourism, craftsmanship, postal merit,
etc. The Canadian Government established the Order of Canada
in 1967 and it is awarded for a wide variety of fields
including agriculture, ballet, medicine, philanthropy, etc.
The Order of Canada has three levels of membership -
Companion, Officer and Member. The total number of living
companions may not at any time exceed 150. No more than 15
Companions, 46 Officers and 92 Members may be appointed in
any given year. The Order of Merit which is said to be the
inspiration behind the National Awards, was instituted in
1902, and is awarded for outstanding service by British
Scientists, writers, or other distinguished civilians. It is
limited to 24 members. It does not carry any title or rank.
30. The National Awards are not violative of the principles
of equality as guaranteed by the provisions of the
Constitution. The theory of equality does not mandate that
merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the
Constitution speaks of the fundamental duties of every
citizen of India. In this context, we may refer to the
various clauses of Article 51A and specifically clause (j)
which 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, necessary that there
should be a system of awards and decorations to recognise
excellence in the performance of these duties.
31. Hereditary titles of nobility conflict with the
principle of equality insofar as they create a separate,
identifiable class of people who are distinct from the rest
of society and have access to special privileges. Titles
that are not hereditary but carry suffixes or prefixes have
the same effect, though the degree may be lesser. While
other Constitutions also prohibit the conferment of titles
of nobility, ours may perhaps be unique in requiring that
awards conferred by the State are not to be used as suffixes
or prefixes. This difference is borne out of the peculiar
problems that these titles had created in pre-independent
India and the earnest desire of the framers to prevent the
repetition of these circumstances in Free, Independent
India.
32. It has been contended before us that over the years,
the purpose for which these awards were instituted has been
diluted and they are granted liberally to persons who are
undeserving of them. The perversion of the system was the
motivating factor behind the Bill introduced in Parliament
by Acharya Kripalani to abolish these decorations. It is to
be remembered that Acharya Kripalani was the Chairman of the
Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights where the present
Article 18(1) was originally formulated. He was, therefore,
fully aware of the exact import of Article 18(1). It is
significant that in the debates in Parliament, the thrust of
his attack was on the misuse of these decorations. However,
it is axiomatic that the misuse of a concept does not change
its inherent nature. 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 this is done, the
defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him
or her by following the procedure laid down in Regulation 10
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14
of each of the four notifications creating these National
Awards.
33. The guidelines contained in the communique from the
Ministry of Home Affairs towards the selection of probable
recipients are extremely wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse
and wholly unsatisfactory for the 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. The Prime Minister’s Committee on Awards &
Honours, 1948 had recommended certain limitations in terms
of numbers but these have not been incorporated in the
extant guidelines. As stated earlier, 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 is not diluted. While in the grant of the
Bharat Ratna award sufficient restraint has been shown, the
same cannot be said of all other awards. The exercise of
such restraint is absolutely necessary to safeguard the
importance of the awards. That is why the need for
necessarily granting awards every year also requires
reconsideration. These and the fixing of other criteria,
which will ensure that the recipients 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 consultation with the
President of India. Even otherwise it is time that such a
committee looks into the working of the existing guidelines
in view of the experience gained. We say no more as we have
entrusted the task of setting up of the Committee to high
level functionaries. We may only say that the Committee may
keep in view our anxiety that the number of Awards should
not be so large as to dilute their value. We may point out
that in some countries, including U.S.A., the total number
of Awards to be given is restricted. With these observations
we dispose of both the petitions - cases with no order as to
costs.
34. Before we part with the case, we would like to record
our appreciation for the assistance provided to us, at our
request, by Mr. Santosh Hegde, Senior Counsel.
Balaji Raghavan [in T.C.(C) No.9/94]
S.P. Anand [in T.C.(C) No.1/95]
V
Union of India [in both cases]
J U D G M E N T
Kuldip Singh, J.
I have read the opinion proposed by A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. I
agree with the Chief Justice that Bharat Ratna and Padma
awards are not "titles" within Article 18 of the
Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the
citizens for exceptional and distinguished services rendered
in art, literature, 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 question to be considered, however, is whether
the purpose of instituting these awards is being achieved
and these are being conferred on the deserving persons. The
history and experience shows that, in the beginning, these
awards were given to a limited number of persons but in the
recent years there have been floodgates of awards for the
person who are well known, lesser known and even unknown.
The Padma awards have been conferred on businessmen and
industrialists who have multiplied their own wealth and have
hardly helped the growth of national interest. Persons with
little or no contribution in any field can be seen
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14
masquerading as Padma awardees. The existing procedure for
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,
favoritism, patronage and even corruption.
During the British occupation India has had a spate of
title hunters who brought degradation and much harm to
healthy public life. The title hunters have always been
considered a menace to the safe growth of a society. Though
the Padma awards are not titles but in case these awards are
given at the whims of the authorities - without there being
proper criteria and method of selection - they are bound to
do more harm to the society than the title-seekers did
during the British regime.
While opposing the Bill titled "The Conferment of
Decorations on Persons (Abolition) Bill, 1969" moved by
Acharya J.B. Kripalani in the Parliament, Mr. N.K.P. Salve
in his speech (Parliamentary Debates, November 27, 1970)
stated as under:-
"SHRI N.K.P. SALVE : I am aware that the
decorations have been bestowed
indiscriminately on businessmen and
others. In fact, one of my suggestions
is that any decoration awarded to any
person who is found guilty of any
’commercial offence’ should be
withdrawn. We should be extremely,
strict about the awarding of
decorations............ SHRI N.K.P.
SALVE : I am entirely in agreement with
Shri Madhu Limaye that some of them have
received these decorations without
deserving them in the least if at all
they deserved anything, it was something
else. But they have received
decorations. In fact, it is within my
knowledge that some of them have put
their decorations to commercial
exploitation. In fact, a certain
managing director of a company wrote a
letter to me sometime ago. On his
letterhead was written ’Ex-Rai Bahadur,
Padma Vibhushan’ so and so
................
The criteria for awarding these
decorations are not very clear. The
Bharat Ratna is to be awarded for
exceptional service towards the
advancement of art, literature and
science, whereas the Padma Vibhushan is
to be awarded for exceptional and
distinguished service. Bharat Ratna is
for exceptional service and Padma
Vibhushan is for exceptional and
distinguished service. Exceptional and
distinguished service must be given the
number one decoration and not number
two. So, there is a patent fallacy in
this type of criteria which has been
laid down. It seems some bureaucrat has
written this without understanding all
these anomalies in the matter. I do hope
that they do some amount of
rationalisation of this matter."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14
The above words were spoken in the Parliament about
quarter of a century back. 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 political or
narrow group interests are being rewarded by those in office
for the time being.
The examination of initial deliberations regarding
institution of these awards show that in the first meeting
of the committee held on February 27, 1948 under the
Chairmanship of Mr. B.N. Rau, it was recommended that an
extremely high standard should be prescribed for these
awards and total number of award to be given in each
category should be limited and fixed. It was recommended
that awards should be made very sparingly and only on
grounds of outstanding merit. They should not be made merely
because there happen to be vacancies in a particular
category. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
prepared a note dated January 10, 1953 for the consideration
of the Cabinet. It was proposed to institute suitable awards
for meritorious public services. The note clearly suggested
that the number of recipients in various awards must be
restricted. The report was considered by the Cabinet
presided over by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and was accepted with
some minor modifications.
Therefore, to ensure that Padma awards are truly
national in character and above party and political
considerations, I suggest 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 others, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of
India or his nominee and the leader of Opposition in the Lok
Sabha. At the State level similar committees may be formed
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.
The function of the State committees may only be to
recommend the names of the persons, who in their opinion are
deserving of 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 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.
The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.