Abolition of Titles under Article 18

India, as a democratic republic, strives to establish equality and unity within its diverse society. One of the cornerstones of this vision is the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. The framers of the Constitution, deeply influenced by the struggle against colonial oppression, sought to eliminate any remnants of aristocratic privilege. 

Among the various provisions that contribute to this egalitarian framework, Article 18 of the Constitution holds a special place as it abolishes the conferral of titles by the State. In doing so, it safeguards the fundamental principle of equality by preventing the creation of a titled nobility or the perpetuation of hereditary distinctions.

What is Article 18?

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution is part of Part III, which deals with Fundamental Rights. The primary objective of this article is to abolish titles that may result in class distinctions among citizens. The provision prevents the State from granting titles, with a few important exceptions. The purpose behind this provision is to ensure that the government does not confer titles that can perpetuate social inequality, division, or hereditary privilege, which could undermine the ideals of democracy and equality.

Article 18 is often seen as a direct response to the colonial system that rewarded individuals with titles such as “Rai Bahadur,” “Sir,” or “Nawab,” based on their allegiance to the British Empire. These titles were used to foster loyalty among the ruling elite and reinforce their superiority over ordinary citizens. Therefore, Article 18 aims to break the link between such artificial distinctions and the concept of equality.

Text of Article 18

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.

The Four Clauses of Article 18

Clause (1): Prohibition on State Titles

• Prohibition: Clause (1) of Article 18 prevents the State from conferring any titles, with the exception of military or academic distinctions. The titles that fall under this prohibition include those that could be associated with nobility, aristocracy, or any hereditary social class.
  
• Military and Academic Distinctions: The exclusion of military and academic distinctions from the prohibition is significant. Titles such as “Param Vir Chakra” (military bravery) and academic titles such as “Doctor” or “Professor” are allowed because they represent achievement or contribution rather than rank or nobility.

Clause (2): Foreign Titles for Citizens

• Prohibition for Indian Citizens: Clause (2) makes it clear that no Indian citizen shall accept any title from any foreign State. This provision prevents Indian nationals from being influenced by or submitting to the authority of a foreign power.
  
• Objective: The aim is to maintain national sovereignty and ensure that Indian citizens remain loyal to their country, without the influence of foreign powers through titles or recognitions.

Clauses (3) and (4): Non-Citizens in Government Service

• Foreign Titles for Non-Citizens Holding Government Posts: Clauses (3) and (4) specifically apply to non-citizens who hold offices of profit or trust under the Indian government. These clauses require such non-citizens to obtain presidential consent before accepting any titles, gifts, or emoluments from any foreign state.
  
• Rationale: This provision ensures that non-citizen office-holders do not become susceptible to foreign influence, which could undermine their loyalty and the integrity of the Indian government. It acts as a safeguard against potential conflicts of interest.

Purpose and Significance of Article 18

The purpose of Article 18 is twofold: to eliminate social stratification and to prevent undue external influence on Indian citizens and government officials.

Promoting Equality

The core objective of Article 18 is to promote equality among all citizens. By prohibiting the conferment of titles, the Constitution seeks to avoid the creation of a privileged class or caste of citizens who enjoy special rights due to hereditary titles.

Titles such as “Sir,” “Nawab,” and “Raja” have historically been used to distinguish the ruling elite from the general population. Such distinctions were often associated with wealth, power, and privilege, which are inherently unequal.

In a democratic republic like India, equality before the law is a foundational value. Article 18 ensures that no individual, regardless of their social or economic standing, can hold a title that elevates them above others based on hereditary privilege.

Preventing External Influence

Clause (2) of Article 18 prevents Indian citizens from accepting titles from foreign States, ensuring that their loyalty lies only with India.

Clauses (3) and (4) ensure that non-citizens holding government positions do not accept titles or emoluments from foreign states without the President’s approval, thus protecting the integrity of Indian governance.

The Role of Titles in Colonial India

Before independence, titles were used extensively by the British colonial authorities to reinforce their control over the Indian population. Titles like “Rai Bahadur,” “Zamindar,” and “Nawab” were bestowed upon those who supported the colonial regime. These titles conferred special privileges, social standing, and wealth, and were used as tools of control and loyalty.

The abolition of such titles after independence was crucial in dismantling the social hierarchy that had been entrenched by the British. Article 18 ensures that such titles do not regain their place in Indian society, helping to eradicate the remnants of feudalism and colonialism.

Exemptions under Article 18

Although Article 18 prohibits the conferment of titles, it provides specific exceptions. Titles relating to military and academic distinctions are not prohibited.

Military Titles

Example: “Param Vir Chakra,” awarded for acts of exceptional bravery in the armed forces, is not considered a title in the sense intended by Article 18. It is an honour bestowed for acts of courage and service to the nation.

Academic Distinctions

Example: Titles such as “Doctor” or “Professor” are not banned under Article 18. These titles reflect intellectual achievements and do not signify nobility or rank. Academic distinctions, therefore, serve as merit-based recognitions of individual effort and contribution to society.

Civilian Awards

Awards such as the Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Vibhushan are considered forms of state appreciation for exceptional service in various fields. These awards are not viewed as titles because they do not carry social rank or hereditary significance. Instead, they are symbols of the State’s recognition of individuals’ outstanding contributions to society.

However, recipients are not permitted to use these awards as prefixes or suffixes to their names (e.g., “Padma Bhushan A. B. Mehta” is not permitted).

Landmark Cases on Article 18

The interpretation of Article 18 has been subject to judicial scrutiny, particularly in the context of national awards and professional designations.

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1995)

• Issue: The petitioners challenged the conferment of national awards like the Bharat Ratna, Padma Bhushan, Padma Vibhushan, and Padma Shri, arguing that they constituted “titles” under Article 18(1) of the Constitution.
  
• Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Court held that these awards are not “titles” in the sense intended by Article 18. They are recognitions for meritorious service and do not bestow social rank. The Court also noted that Article 51A(j) of the Constitution encourages citizens to aspire for excellence in various fields, and such awards serve to honour that excellence.

Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017)

• Issue: The use of the term “Senior Advocate” before the names of advocates was challenged as a violation of Article 18.
  
• Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Court ruled that “Senior Advocate” is a professional designation, not a title. It is based on an advocate’s skill, expertise, and recognition by the Court, and does not violate the prohibition on titles under Article 18.

Conclusion

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution plays a critical role in ensuring equality and fairness in the social, political, and professional spheres. By abolishing titles that could perpetuate social hierarchies, the Constitution reinforces its commitment to democracy and egalitarianism. The article eliminates the possibility of individuals gaining special privileges based on birth, social class, or foreign influence.

While exceptions are made for military honours, academic degrees, and national awards, these distinctions are merit-based and do not confer social rank or nobility. The judiciary has consistently upheld the spirit of Article 18, clarifying that professional designations and awards for excellence do not violate its provisions.