Article 18 of the Constitution abolishes titles. Article 18(1) reads: "No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State." This was a republican commitment — equality of citizens, no aristocratic distinctions. Yet the Government of India has, since 1954, conferred Bharat Ratna (the highest civilian award), Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri. Are these "titles" prohibited by Article 18(1)? The question reached the Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996). The 2021 Prelims tested propositions about the awards. Hold the constitutional question, the judgment's reasoning, and the operational framework for the awards.
Article 18 — abolition of titles
Article 18 contains four clauses:
Article 18(1): "No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State."
Article 18(2): "No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State."
Article 18(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."
Article 18(4): "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."
Two exceptions in Article 18(1):
One — Military distinctions. Awards for military service are explicitly permitted. Examples: Param Vir Chakra, Maha Vir Chakra, Vir Chakra, Ashoka Chakra, Sena Medal, Vishisht Seva Medal.
Two — Academic distinctions. University degrees, professional qualifications, educational honours. These are recognitions of scholarly achievement, not aristocratic titles.
The framers' intent. The Constituent Assembly debated Article 18 extensively. The framers wanted to:
(i) Eliminate the aristocratic title system (knighthoods, baronetcies, princely titles).
(ii) Establish republican equality — no person should be elevated above others by State conferral of titles.
(iii) Prevent the abuse of patronage that title systems often create.
(iv) Reflect democratic values — service to society, not aristocratic privilege, is the measure of distinction.
Pre-1947 title system. Before independence, the British Crown conferred:
(i) Knighthoods (Knight Bachelor, Knight Commander, etc.).
(ii) Baronetcies (hereditary).
(iii) Princely titles (Maharaja, Raja, Nawab, etc. — for rulers of princely states).
(iv) Various medals and orders (Order of the British Empire, Companion of the Indian Empire, etc.).
These created social hierarchies based on royal favour. The Constitution's rejection of titles was a deliberate break from this past.
Foreign titles received similar treatment. Article 18(2)-(4) prevent foreign powers from conferring titles on Indian citizens (without the safeguards of these provisions).
Civilian awards — Bharat Ratna and Padma
Despite Article 18(1), the Government of India established a system of civilian awards in 1954.
Constitution of awards (1954). By Presidential Notification dated 2 January 1954, two distinct awards were established:
(i) Bharat Ratna — the highest civilian award.
(ii) Padma Vibhushan — divided originally into three classes: Pahela Varg, Dusra Varg, Tisra Varg. (Reorganised in 1955.)
Reorganisation in 1955. By Presidential Notification dated 8 January 1955, the Padma Vibhushan was reorganised into three separate awards:
(i) Padma Vibhushan — second-highest civilian honour, for "exceptional and distinguished service."
(ii) Padma Bhushan — third-highest, for "distinguished service of high order."
(iii) Padma Shri — fourth-highest, for "distinguished service in any field."
Bharat Ratna eligibility. The Bharat Ratna is awarded for "exceptional service or performance of the highest order in any field of human endeavour." Originally restricted to Indian citizens; later expanded to include non-citizens.
Awards process. The recommendations are made to the Prime Minister by the public; the Prime Minister recommends to the President; the President confers the award.
Major formal aspects:
(i) Awards are typically announced on Republic Day (26 January).
(ii) Investiture ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan.
(iii) Recipients receive a medallion and certificate.
(iv) Bharat Ratna recipients receive a peepul-leaf shaped medallion.
(v) Padma awards have distinct designs (Vibhushan, Bhushan, Shri).
Suspension of awards. The Padma awards were suspended twice in their history:
(i) 1977-1980 — suspended by the Janata Government, which considered the awards inconsistent with Article 18(1) and the republican character of the State.
(ii) 1992-1995 — suspended due to public controversy about the selection process; restored when Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India reached the Supreme Court.
The Bharat Ratna has not been suspended in the same way, but there have been gaps in the conferral.
Other civilian awards. Beyond Bharat Ratna and Padma awards, India has:
(i) Sahitya Akademi awards (literary).
(ii) Sangeet Natak Akademi awards (performing arts).
(iii) Lalit Kala Akademi awards (visual arts).
(iv) Bhatnagar Prize (science).
(v) Magsaysay Award (private, but awarded to Indians).
These are not "national" awards in the same sense as Bharat Ratna and Padma — they are conferred by specific Akademis or organisations.
The 2021 Prelims — three propositions
The 2021 Prelims tested specific propositions about Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards:
- Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards are titles under Article 18(1) of the Constitution of India.
- Padma Awards, which were instituted in the year 1954, were suspended only once.
- The number of Bharat Ratna Awards is restricted to a maximum of five in a particular year.
Three points to note:
One — Awards are not titles. The constitutional question — whether national civilian awards are "titles" within Article 18(1) — was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan (1996). The Court held they are NOT titles.
Two — Suspended twice. Many UPSC candidates remember only one suspension (the 1977-80 Janata era). Few remember the 1992-95 suspension. Both are historically accurate.
The 1977-80 suspension was political — the Janata Government had ideological objections to civilian awards as inconsistent with republican equality. They were restored by Indira Gandhi after she returned to power.
The 1992-95 suspension was procedural — the awards process had become controversial, with allegations of political favouritism. After the controversy was litigated in Balaji Raghavan, the awards were restored with revised procedures.
Three — Maximum number per year. The Bharat Ratna rules limit the number of awards per year. The Padma awards collectively are restricted (with maximum approximately 120 per year). This restriction is part of preserving the prestige of the awards.
The 2021 question's precise wording ("maximum of five in a particular year") matches the rules — the Bharat Ratna rules permit up to three per year, and the question's "five" interpretation has been accepted in some readings. Other readings interpret the limit as three. Despite this ambiguity, statement 3 is generally treated as correct because there IS a numerical restriction (whether three or five).
Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996)
Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) is the landmark Supreme Court judgment on Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards.
Facts. The petitioner challenged the conferral of national civilian awards as violating Article 18(1) — arguing that they constitute "titles" prohibited by the Constitution. The challenge had been intensified by controversies in the early 1990s about the awards selection process.
Issue. Are Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards "titles" within the meaning of Article 18(1)?
Holding. The Supreme Court (5-judge bench) held that the awards are NOT titles within Article 18(1). They are valid under the Constitution, subject to certain restrictions on use.
Reasoning.
One — Distinction between titles and awards. The Court held that "title" in Article 18(1) refers to aristocratic titles that elevate the holder to a hereditary or social class. National awards are recognitions of distinguished service — they confer no privileges, no hereditary rights, no social class membership.
Two — Constitutional intent. The framers of Article 18(1) intended to abolish aristocratic title systems (knighthoods, baronetcies, princely titles). They did not intend to prevent the State from honouring distinguished citizens through awards.
Three — Comparable global practice. Most democracies have national civilian awards — France's Légion d'Honneur, the U.K. Order of the British Empire, the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, etc. These are not considered titles in the constitutional sense.
Four — Public service recognition. The State has a legitimate interest in recognising and encouraging public service, contributions to nation-building, achievement in arts and sciences, and similar accomplishments. Civilian awards serve this legitimate purpose.
Conditions imposed by the Court. The judgment imposed important restrictions:
(i) Cannot be used as part of name. The awards cannot be used as titles attached to the recipient's name. So "Bharat Ratna A.B. Vajpayee" is unconstitutional; but "A.B. Vajpayee, Bharat Ratna" (as an attribution after the name) is acceptable.
(ii) Cannot create privileges. The awards cannot be used to claim privileges in legal, social, or business contexts. Recipients are not entitled to special treatment by virtue of holding the award.
(iii) Cannot be hereditary. Awards do not pass to heirs. They are personal honours.
(iv) Selection process must be fair. Selection should be based on merit, not political favour. The judgment criticised the existing process and called for reform.
(v) Awards can be revoked. If a recipient subsequently does something that would disqualify them, the award can be revoked. (Example: Subhash Chandra Bose's posthumous Bharat Ratna proposal was withdrawn after objections about historical accuracy of the underlying facts.)
Effect of the judgment.
(i) National awards continue to be conferred.
(ii) Use of awards as titles is unconstitutional.
(iii) Selection process has been reformed (more transparency, public nomination).
(iv) The constitutional question is settled — awards are valid under Article 18.
The judgment harmonised Article 18 with the State's legitimate interest in recognising distinguished service — preserving constitutional republican values while enabling national honours.
Bharat Ratna recipients — history
The Bharat Ratna has been conferred selectively since 1954. Some historical highlights:
First recipients (1954).
(i) C. Rajagopalachari — first Indian Governor-General; Indian National Congress leader.
(ii) Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan — philosopher, second President of India.
(iii) C.V. Raman — Nobel Laureate physicist.
Notable later recipients (selective list):
(i) Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Sukhdev (proposed posthumously; rules clarified after).
(ii) Pandit Govind Vallabh Pant — 1957.
(iii) Maulana Abul Kalam Azad — 1992 (posthumous).
(iv) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — 1990 (posthumous).
(v) Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel — 1991 (posthumous).
(vi) Mother Teresa — 1980.
(vii) Aruna Asaf Ali — 1997 (posthumous).
(viii) Madan Mohan Malaviya — 2014 (posthumous).
(ix) Atal Bihari Vajpayee — 2014.
(x) Pranab Mukherjee — 2019.
(xi) Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam — 1997.
(xii) Lata Mangeshkar — 2001.
(xiii) Sachin Tendulkar — 2014 (first sportsperson).
(xiv) Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Atal Bihari Vajpayee — 2014.
Foreign recipients. Originally for Indian citizens only. The rules were modified to allow non-Indian citizens:
(i) Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan ("Frontier Gandhi") — 1987 (Pakistani).
(ii) Nelson Mandela — 1990 (South African).
Posthumous awards. Originally not allowed; rules amended in 1955 to permit posthumous conferral. Many posthumous awards followed — Lal Bahadur Shastri (1966), Indira Gandhi (1971), K. Kamaraj (1976), Subhas Chandra Bose (proposed 1992 but withdrawn), JRD Tata, Satyajit Ray, etc.
Subhas Chandra Bose case. In 1992, the Government announced posthumous Bharat Ratna for Subhas Chandra Bose. The notification was challenged on grounds that there was no settled official record of his death (he had been declared missing after the 1945 Taipei plane crash; family members and historians disputed the official version). The Court directed reconsideration. The proposal was withdrawn.
This case illustrated:
(i) The political-historical significance of Bharat Ratna decisions.
(ii) The Court's power to review such decisions.
(iii) The need for fact-based selection.
Selection process post-Balaji Raghavan. The Government revised the process:
(i) Public can nominate via the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards Committee.
(ii) Recommendations made by Prime Minister to the President.
(iii) Selection committee includes the Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary, and other senior officials.
(iv) Awards announced typically on Republic Day.
The process is more transparent than before Balaji Raghavan, but selection still involves political considerations.
Continuing debate and critique
Despite the constitutional settlement in Balaji Raghavan, civilian awards continue to attract criticism and debate.
One — Selection politicisation. Critics argue that:
(i) Awards are sometimes given to political figures shortly after they leave office, raising questions about impartiality.
(ii) Some recipients are controversial or have mixed records.
(iii) Some deserving candidates are passed over for political reasons.
(iv) The selection process, despite reforms, remains opaque.
Two — Devaluation through expansion. The Padma awards have expanded substantially. Approximately 100-120 Padma awards are conferred annually. Critics argue that this dilutes the prestige.
Defenders argue that India's population and diverse achievements justify the larger numbers. Many recipients are non-elite figures recognised for grassroots work — folk artists, traditional healers, social workers — whose recognition is the welcome democratisation of honours.
Three — Refusal of awards. Some Indian citizens have refused civilian awards. Notable refusals:
(i) Subhas Chandra Bose family — refused posthumous award in light of unresolved death circumstances.
(ii) Various intellectuals and activists — refused awards as protest against government policies (e.g., return of Padma awards by writers and intellectuals during Award Wapsi 2015).
(iii) Some journalists and academics — refused on grounds of independence.
The right to refuse reflects the voluntary nature of awards — they are honours offered by the State; recipients can accept or decline.
Four — Comparison with other democracies. Civilian awards are common globally:
(i) U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom — established 1963.
(ii) U.K. Order of the British Empire — established 1917.
(iii) French Légion d'Honneur — established 1802 by Napoleon.
(iv) German Order of Merit — established 1951.
Most democracies have analogous systems. India's framework is broadly comparable.
Five — Reform proposals.
(i) More transparent selection process.
(ii) Independent selection committee (with non-political members).
(iii) Limit on the number of awards.
(iv) Ban on awards to active politicians.
(v) Provision for revocation in case of subsequent misconduct.
None of these reforms has been enacted. The current system continues with periodic controversies.
The constitutional position remains as Balaji Raghavan established it — awards are valid; cannot be used as titles; selection should be merit-based.
What students must hold
Six points carry the weight. One, Article 18(1) prohibits the State from conferring titles, EXCEPT military and academic distinctions. Article 18(2) restricts foreign titles to citizens. Articles 18(3) and (4) restrict foreign titles/presents to office-of-profit holders without President's consent.
Two, Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards instituted by Presidential Notification on 2 January 1954. Padma reorganised by 8 January 1955 Notification into three classes: Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri. Bharat Ratna remains the highest civilian honour.
Three, Padma Awards SUSPENDED TWICE: (i) 1977-1980 (Janata Government — ideological objection); (ii) 1992-1995 (selection process controversy). The 2021 Prelims tested this — statement 2 ("suspended only once") was WRONG.
Four, Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) — landmark. Held that Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards are NOT "titles" within Article 18(1). They are recognitions of distinguished service. BUT cannot be used as part of name; cannot create privileges; cannot be hereditary. Selection must be merit-based.
Five, the 2021 Prelims (Q6): only statement 3 correct. Statement 1 (titles under 18(1)) WRONG (per Balaji Raghavan). Statement 2 (suspended only once) WRONG. Statement 3 (number restriction) is generally treated as correct — there are limits on annual conferral (Bharat Ratna typically max 3 per year; Padma awards approx 100-120).
Six, broader context: civilian awards globally common (U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, U.K. OBE, French Légion d'Honneur). Indian framework constitutionally settled but politically debated. Ongoing critiques about selection process, devaluation through expansion, political favouritism. Right to refuse exists. For more, see Right to Equality and Right to Property.