MODULE 2[A]: ARTICLE 18 TO THE

INDIAN CONSTITUTION

1. Article 18

1.1. Words of the Article

(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 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

1.2. Meaning

 Titles like zamindaar, bahadhur etc. were prevalent in medieval India.

 But article 18 of the Indian constitution abolished the titles as to preserve the equality and
also to maintain the democracy in the country.
 The clauses to this Article state that:
 Preventing the state to confer titles except for military and academic achievements.
 the citizens of the India shall not accept any titles from the foreign state.

Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)

The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 1|Page
  But foreign nationals who holds the office or trust under the state can accept titles from
any foreign state with the consent of the president only.

Titles may affect the true sense of democracy by creating unnecessary hereditary hierarchies in
the society.

 Before independence, it was the british tradition to award titles like Raosaheb
,Diwansaheb, Raobahadur,etc.
 This resulted into artificial distinction in the society as the people with such titles got
certain privileges.
 The Constitution upon its arrival had abolished such titles to preserve the true sense of
democracy by ensuring equality and dignity among the citizens of the country.
 The Indian Constitution, as its Preamble states, wanted to rebuild a cohesive and
integrated society by providing for equality of status.
 This is what ARTICLE 18 does and is all about.
 Further, Recognition of the titles and the creation of a hierarchy of aristocracy which is
its consequence had been considered as an anti- democratic practice in the early eighteen
century by both the American and the french revolutions.
 A democracy should not create titles which ultimately lead to inequality.
 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar quoted in the constituent assembly that Article 18 does not create a
justiciable right.

"One of the conditions is that he must not accept a title, if he did, it would be open for
Parliament to decide by law what should be done to persons who violate the provisions
of this article. One of the penalties may be that he may lose the right of citizenship."
 Thus, this article puts an obligation to both the state and citizens from recognizing and
accepting the titles.

Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)

The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 2|Page
  The prohibition is applicable to not only the state and the citizens but also extends to the
foreigners who hold office or trust under the state.
 However they can accept the titles from another state with the consent of the president.

1.3. Explanation

1.3.1. So what does article 18 say? [Abolition of Titles]

This particular Article abolishes the titles that would enable some individuals to use the
conferred titles in order to obtain privileges otherwise. Article 18 prohibits the State from
conferring titles on people whether they are a citizen of India or a non-citizen. Clause (2) of this
Article prohibits an Indian citizen from accepting any form of title from any foreign state. Clause
(3) further puts a prohibition on a person who is non-citizen, but holds a post under the State
(any office of profit or trust) from accepting a title from any foreign state. Clause (4) states that
no citizen or non-citizen who holds any office of profit should accept any present or office or
emolument of any sort from any foreign country without the President’s consent. The last two
clauses have been added for ensuring that no citizens or non-citizens commit any breach of trust
and remain loyal to India. However military and academic distinctions have been exempted from
the above prohibition. Furthermore, the conferment of titles of “Bharat Ratna”, “Padma
Vibhushan”, “Padma Shri” are also not prohibited under Article 18 as they are denotations of a
citizen excelling in their respective fields and the State recognizing their work.

The reason for the prohibition is because a title provides for an added glorification to a person’s
names and thereby goes against the norm of social equality. Article 18 therefore imposes a
restriction on the executive and legislative power to not exercise powers under the so conferred
titles that would be exercised otherwise.

Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly put forth, "The non-acceptance of titles is a condition of
continued citizenship, it is not a right, it is a duty imposed upon the individual that if he
Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)
The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 3|Page
continues to be the citizen of this country, then he must abide by certain conditions. One of the
conditions is that he must not accept a title, if he did, it would be open for Parliament to decide
by law what should be done to persons who violate the provisions of this article. One of the
penalties may be that he may lose the right of citizenship.”

In India, the practice of conferring titles had been prevailing since the time of British. The
British Government conferred a number of titles on people who were mostly their political
supporters and hired as the government officials. Therefore the particular conferment had created
a sense of nobility among the citizens of the country. And furthermore it was a crucial step that
the then newly independent India would have to take from de- recognizing these titles to
establish a status of social justice and equality among all.

1.4. Case law highlighting Article 18:

Ø Balaji Raghavanvs UOI (1996): In this matter, the validity of national awards came to be
challenged under Article 18 on the grounds that it was inconsistent with what Article18 stated.
Although the Supreme Court upheld the validity of civilian honors, it criticized the government
for not having exercised restraint while conferring these honors. It was held that national awards
are not of a titular nature and cannot be used to glorify a person’s name. And further mentioned
that whoever did so should immediately forfeit the award. The court placed emphasis on the
British rule, and how the conferment of titles was largely being abused for purposes relating to
imperialism. This was the sole reason of the differentiation being caused in the society and
furthermore corrupting the public life and awarding power of un-necessitated means.

Justice Ahmadi had put forth the following contention, “In recent years, the conferment of these
awards without any firm guidelines and fool-proof method of selection is bound to breed
nepotism, favoritism, patronage and even corruption. Thus, an extremely high standard should
be prescribed for those awards and the total number of such awards should not exceed 50 every

Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)

The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 4|Page
year. The exercise of such restraint is absolutely necessary to safeguard the importance of these
awards.” In order to curb the misuse of power and prevent it from resulting in its derogatory
form, the court proposed the formation of a high level committee that could be appointed by the
Prime Minister in consultation with the President to ensure the conferment of the awards on
individuals who are actually entitled to receive the honor. And furthermore those who will not
abuse the honor bestowed upon by them by shifting the honor to a titular privilege.

Justice Kuldip Singh in the concurring judgment put forth the suggestion of the committee and
recommended the inclusion of the Speaker of LokSabha, the Chief Justice of India and the leader
of the Opposition in the LokSabha. To this the Union Government did appoint a High Level
Review Committee that was chaired by the Vice-President, who formulated the guidelines and
fixed the criteria for the selection process for “Padma awards.” This was done solely for the
purpose of enhancing the respect that the awards originally held before they became mere titled
privileges.

Article 18 is considered merely directive in nature and thereon confers no penalty if one manages
to infringe the rights and violate Article 18. The Parliament should formulate laws for dealing
with people who misuse the titular privilege.

The Constitution, as stated in the very Preamble, was designed to rebuild a unified and
assimilated society that provided for the equalization of status to each and every individual. A
society where individual rights were recognized and not infringed.

Therefore both these Articles established under the Constitution are responsible for establishing
a norm for social justice.

1.5. Need and importance

Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)

The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 5|Page
  Article 18 of the Indian constitution which talks about the abolition of the titles is very
important article in a developing democratic country like India.
 Democratic India is based on the four pillars of the constitution which are justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity.
 The titles which were prevalent from the medieval India disturb the structure of the
democracy by creating artificial distinction in the society.
 So, there was a dire need to abolish such titles and uphold the concept of equality among
the individuals.

1.6. Authors note

 In free India everyone is equal.

 In Balaji Raghavan V. Union of India the petitioners contented that national awards such
as Bharatratna, Padma bhushan, Padmasri etc. were also titles under the article 18 of the
Indian constitution.
 Therefore, they should also be abolished.
 But the supreme court upheld the validity of national awards, and stated that the national
awards are not violative of article 18 of the constitution.
 They are the appreciation for the excellence and the exceptional services provided by
them.
 The national awards cannot be put as a prefix or suffix to the name of the individual.
 It is also to be noted that there is absolutely no penalty for infringement of the above
prohibition of titles.
 Article 18 is merely a directory article.
 However, it is on to the Parliament to make laws for dealing with such persons who
accept a title in violation of the prohibition prescribed in the Article 18.
 No such law has been passed by the Parliament so far.

Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)

The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 6|Page
Advanced Course on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights (Module 2A)
The LAW Learners thelawlearners.com 7|Page