Article 18 in Constitution of India

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 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.Editorial Comment - Article 18(1) of the Indian Constitution abolishes all titles and prohibits the state from conferring titles on any individual, whether they are a citizen or a non-citizen. However, military and academic distinctions are exceptions to this prohibition. This means that universities, for instance, can grant titles or honors to individuals based on their merit. Article 18(2) specifically prohibits Indian citizens from accepting titles from foreign states. Article 18(3) states that non-citizens holding positions of profit or trust under the Indian State require the President's consent to accept titles from foreign states. Additionally, Article 18(4) stipulates that no person, whether a citizen or a non-citizen, holding a position of profit or trust, can accept any gifts, salary, or office from a foreign state without the President's consent. Clauses (3) and (4) aim to ensure the loyalty of non-citizens towards the Indian State and prevent any breach of trust.

A "title" refers to an attachment to one's name, such as a prefix or suffix (e.g., Sir, Nawab, Maharaja). In a democracy, the creation of titles and titular glories is discouraged as it goes against the principles of social equality.

However, it is argued that titles like "Bharat Ratna," "Padma Vibhushan," and "Padma Shri" (introduced in 1954) are not prohibited under Article 18 because they signify state recognition of exceptional work by citizens in various fields. It is important to note that Article 18 does not confer any fundamental right but rather imposes restrictions on executive and legislative powers. The conferral of titles is seen as contrary to the fundamental principle of equality guaranteed by Article 14, which ensures equal treatment of all citizens.

In the landmark judgment Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996, the court held that National awards aren’t titles under clause 1 of Article 18. A committee (High Level Review Committee: chaired by the Vice-President) was set up by the Government in which it states that the awards should be given based on recommendations of names given by various state governments. These recommendations will be reviewed by the Centre government. After this committee, the names will be sent to the Prime Minister’s Office and finally sent to the President for the final verdict. It is important to remember that there are no guidelines given for the Bharat Ratna award.

In the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), a complaint was lodged in this matter questioning the usage of the term ‘senior advocate’ before the names of the advocates. The Supreme Court ruled that this is not the title, but rather a demarcation, and therefore does not violate Article 18 of the Indian Constitution.ReferencesIndianKanoonConstitutionofIndia.net Social Laws Today