imgs

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20140519060941/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=19825

CASE NO.:
Transfer Case (civil)  9 of 1994

PETITIONER:
BALAJI  RAGHAVAN S.P. ANAND

RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/1995

BENCH:
A.M. AHMADI CJ & KULDIP SINGH & B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & N.P. SINGH & S. SAGHIR
AHMAD

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT

1995 Supp. (6) SCR 694

The Judgments of the Court were delivered by

AHMADI, CJI: I, 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 225 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, 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, 199.?. 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, mi March 7, 1.994, 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 of the time schedule fixed by the Court. Hence we
have refused lo 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 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 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. 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 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 & 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	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 letter-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
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
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 lo merit, arid 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 lo 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.

10.. We may now refer to the text of Article 18 of the Constitution which
reads as follows :

"18. Abolition of titles.  - (I) No title, not being a military or academic
distinction, shall be conferred by the Stale.

.(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. I 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 no! 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 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 back-ground, 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 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 he chosen and over the 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 arc 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 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 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
meritorious services and these National Awards are not violative of the
fight 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 Constitu-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 prefixes or suffixes. He concurred 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 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 (hat what is sought to he 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 Stale from honouring or recognizing
meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens.

18,  We may now refer to the developments preceding the introducetion of
Articl" 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 lo 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 Com-mittee 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 Assemb-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-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 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 :

"No artificial or man-made distinction between citizen and citizens, by way
of titles, honours, privileges - whether personal or in-heritable, - 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 conferments 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 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 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 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
submitting is that we must make a dear 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 A- 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
tides 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 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 Slate 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 lilies; but the idea of
a man putting something before or after his name an 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 distin-guishing
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 :

"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 Ad-Visor, 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'1 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. no!
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 has earlier been accepted by the Drafting Commit-tee.

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 tide 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, 1.948 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 the titles of nobility but allows decorations
such as the Congressional Medal of 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 Danzing 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 Danzing 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 Slate.

.2. .No title .of nobility or of honour may he 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 Philip-
pines, 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 Stales of America, whose
.Constitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility,
follow the practice of regularly conferring civil awards, in the United
States, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, instituted in 1957, honours
Americans and others who make exceptional contributions lo national
security or interest, world peace, culture and so forth. In Frame, 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 (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 docs 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 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 So .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 t he 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 selling up of the Committee Lo
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 lo us, at our request, by Mr. Santosh Hegde,
Senior Counsel.

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 persons 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 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 (latent 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."

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
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 Slate 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.

Judgement

Apr	MAY	Oct
	19
2013	2014	2015