BALAJI RAGHAVAN S.P. ANAND versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 15-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BALAJI RAGHAV AN 
S.P. ANAND 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
DECEMBER 15, 1995 
[AM. AHMADI, CJ, KULDIP SINGH, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, 
N.P. SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 18(1) and 51-A(j) 
Titles-Award of-Prohibition against-Exception-Only in respect of 
military and academic distinctions-Position in other countries dis-
cussed-National Awards--Hereditaiy titles of nobility and their use of suf-
fixes or prefu:es--Prohibited-Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards-Do not 
amount to titles and are not to be used as suffu:es or prefu:es--Such awards 
D are not discriminatory but necessary to recognise excellence in peifor-
mance-17ie guidelines for selection of recepients--Amenable to abuse and 
wholly unsatisfact01y-Number of Awards should be restricted-Formation of 
high powered committees at the National and State levels suggested. J'ublic 
Interest Litigation-Case transferred from High Coult-A public interest 
litigant cannot choose his forum-Once a case is transferred to the Supreme 
E Coult, he must appear before it--Litigants must confnnn to the time schedule 
fu:ed by the Coult-Practice and Procedure. 
F 
Words and Phrases ·_. 
Title-Meaning of in the context of Alticle 18(1) of the constitution of 
India. 
The two petitions which were filed in the High Court sought to 
prevent the respondent fror.i conferring any of the National Awards. The 
High Court restrained the respondent from so conferring. The respondent 
filed petitions before this Court seeking to transfer the cases and this 
G Court transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself. The last date for 
submission of written briefs by both sides was fixed and each side was 
allotted time for oral arguments. One of the petitioners did not present 
himself before the Constitution Bench and no arguments were advanced 
on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion of the hearing and the 
H judgment being reserved, he sent communications requesting that his 
694 
BALAIIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1. 
695 
petition should be delisted or else he should be given a hearing by the A 
Constitution Bench. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that Article 
18(1) of the Constitution did not define, the words "titles" and "distinction"; 
that the word "till~' should be given the widest possible meaning and 
amplitude; that since the only exception to this rule has been carved out B 
in respect of military and academic distinctions, it follows that all other 
/ 
distinctions were impliedly prohibited; and that the National Awards made 
distinctions acto1.'ing to rank which was clearly violative of Article 14 of 
the Constitution. 
c 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that almost every 
countri in the world followed the practice of conferring awards; that the 
appel\;ltions which appeared .as prefixes or suffixes were sought to be 
interdicted by Artide 18(1) of the Constitution; that since the National 
Awards were not titles of Nobility and were not to be used as sullixes or 
prefixes, they were not prohibited by Article 18 of the Constitution; and D 
that guidelines for selection of probable recepients were extremely wide, 
imprecise .and amenable to abuse. 
Disposing of the petitions, this Court, 
HELD : By the court : 1. It is clear that in enancting Article 18(1), E 
the framers of the Constitution sought to put an end to the practice 
followed by the British in respect of conferment of titles. They, therefore, 
prohibited titles of nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or 
prefixes as they result in the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. 
However, the framers did not intend that the State should not officially F 
recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. They, however, man-
dated. that the honours conferred by the State should not be used as 
sullixes or prefixes i.e., as titles, by the recepients. (713-D-E] 
2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around the 
world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose Con- G 
stitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the 
practice of regularly conferring civil awards. (713-F] 
3. The National Awards are not violative of the principles of equality 
as guaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality H 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the 
Constitution speaks of the f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.