Case Brief: Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India

0
3


Case Name Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India
Citation (1996) 1 SCC 361
Court The Supreme Court of India
Bench Hon’ble Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh, Hon’ble Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Hon’ble Justice N.P. Singh Hon’ble Justice S. Sahagir Ahmed 
Decided on 15th December 1995
Case No: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.09 of 1994

Introduction

A title is anything that is either a prefix or a suffix added to a person’s name. Ever since ancient times, people have attached titles to names. Titles served as a means of designating higher status to those with unique abilities. Consequently, these kinds of titles began to incite prejudice against regular people, resulting in inequality.

In Article 18 of Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution, it is prohibited for the state to bestow titles on its people or to recognize titles bestowed by foreign nations unless the President of India grants his or her consent.

Categories of the Civilian Awards:

  1. Bharat Rathna : – In honor of outstanding contributions to the fields of literature, science, and the arts and for distinguished public service.
  2. Padma Shri : – In honor of distinguished service in the field, including service rendered by government servants.
  3. Padma Vibhushan : – In honor of exceptionally distinguished service in any field, including service rendered by government servants
  4. Padma Bhushan : – In honor of distinguished service of a high order in any field, including the service rendered by Government servants.

Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, Balaji Raghavan, filed a writ of mandamus in the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to stop the respondent from awarding any National Awards.
  • The parties in dispute submitted and counter-filed written pleadings between September 30, 1992 and April 7, 1994. However, no interim orders were issued or oral arguments heard by the Kerala High Court.
  • The respondent requested that the Supreme Court of India hear this matter. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India ordered on October 29, 1993, that the case be brought before a bench chaired by the Chief Justice of India.
  • The National Awards and Honours system was established prior to the formal drafting of the Constitution. A series of Presidential Notifications in January 1954 officially established the National Awards.
  • The Government of India clarified in a press release dated April 17, 1978, that the use of Civilian Awards, like Padma Vibhushan and Padma Shri, as titles on letterheads, invitation cards, books, posters, and other materials is against the government’s plan because the awards themselves are not titles, and using them in conjunction with the names of individuals goes against the spirit of the constitution, which outlawed titles. The news release further underlined that the names of the honorees should not be preceded or followed by civilian honours.
  • The National Awards institution was abolished on August 8, 1977. However, these prizes were eventually reinstated by the Indian government on January 25, 1980, after they had previously been annulled. National Awards have been given out on Republic Day every year since that time.
  • The Indian Constitution’s Article 18 addresses the Abolition of Titles, and its first paragraph states that “No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.”

Issues

  1. Whether the Awards like Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri, and Bharat Ratna come under the ambit of Article 18 (1) of the Indian Constitution as Title?

Contentions made from the Petitioner’s Side:

The petitioner’s learned counsel brought up the fact that the terms “titles” and “distinction” are not defined in Article 18(1). He shed more insight on this point by citing the provision’s legislative background. He believed that the British habit of bestowing titles to Indians who performed them favours was something that the writers of the Constitution had meant to eliminate.

Because of this, the people of India held this practice and its beneficiaries in low regard prior to independence, and this clause suggested that similar practices be outlawed in independent India. As a result, the petitioner’s learned counsel believed that to implement the legislative objective fully, the term “title” needs to be interpreted as broadly as feasible. Academic and military distinctions are the only exceptions to this norm; all other distinctions are implicitly forbidden.

National Awards create distinctions based on rank, and since some recipients continued to use these awards in conjunction with their names despite a 1968 government press release forbidding such behaviour, this has led to the establishment of ranks among individuals based on state recognition in a manner akin to that of British rule. Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of status to all citizens, is violated.

Contentions made from the Respondent’s side:

The respondent’s learned attorney general of India stated the practice of conferring awards for meritorious services rendered by its citizens in almost every country.

Titles include honorific, ranked, functional, and office titles with unique appellations (Article 18(1)). A suffix or prefix often comes before or after a name or title used to refer to or identify a person. Names that function as suffixes or prefixes are forbidden under Article 18(1). However, as national awards are not titles of nobility and should not be used as such, they are exempt from this prohibition.

Article 18’s phrase “not being a military or academic distinction” has been utilised sparingly. Given that titles like General, Colonel, Professor, Mahavir Chakra, B.A., and so on do have prefixes or suffixes associated with them, the writers of the Constitution took great care to state that these titles would not apply to them specifically. The interdiction in Article 18(1) will not apply to distinctions that do not bear suffixes or prefixes.

Judgement

The petition has been resolved. The National Awards are not to be used as prefixes or suffixes, nor do they constitute “titles” in the sense of Article 18(1). If this is the case, the National Award that has been granted to the defaulter will be forfeited, and the process for doing so will be as outlined in Regulation 10 of each of the four notices that created these National Awards.  The court was certain that a system of honours and decorations, such as National Awards, should be in place to acknowledge people’ exceptional performance.

The Ministry of Home Affairs’ communique contains instructions for selecting potential recipients that are incredibly broad, imprecise, prone to misuse, and completely inadequate for the significant goal they aim to accomplish. The maximum number of awards that may be presented in a particular year or the maximum number that is allowed in each category are not subject to any restrictions.

While adequate control was demonstrated in the Bharat Ratna award’s issuance, the same cannot be said of the other prizes. Such moderation must be used to protect the significance of the prizes. For this reason, it’s also necessary to reevaluate the requirement to provide rewards each year. A high-level committee that the Prime Minister may create in collaboration with the President of India should review these and the other criteria that will guarantee that the recipients of these awards are treated with respect rather than suspicion.

Analysis

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India was a case in which the interpretation of Article 18(1) of the Indian Constitution—which forbids the state from bestowing titles—was at issue. This provision did not apply to academic or military distinctions. Balaji Raghavan, the petitioner, said that the National Awards violated the constitution since they were titles. He attempted to stop the government from giving the National Awards.

The petitioner’s attorney began the argument by pointing out that Article 18(1) lacks specific definitions for “titles” and “distinction”. The attorney emphasised the legislative context in his argument that the founders of the constitution meant to do away with the British custom of granting titles to Indians who had done good deeds. Petitioner’s main thrust was a wide reading of the phrase “title,” arguing that any distinction other than military or academic ought to be considered illegal. The petitioner’s position stemmed from the conviction that National Awards violated Article 14’s principle of equality by establishing divisions according to governmental recognition.

In contrast, the respondent represented by the Attorney General of India presented a defence in which it claimed that National Awards were not titles covered by Article 18(1). The defense centered their argument on the exemption provided for scholarly and military distinctions, highlighting the careful wording used by the Constitution’s founders to exclude these particular titles. According to the responder, National Awards are honours given for deserving work and should not be regarded as noble titles. The defense’s claim that the Constitution permitted distinctions other than military or academic ones—among which National Awards fell—was based in part on this counterargument.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the respondent, holding that National Awards did not meet the requirements of Article 18(1) for titles. The court’s ruling was based on the important distinction between titles and distinctions, stressing that although using National Awards as prefixes or suffixes in names was forbidden, the awards themselves were not titles. While acknowledging the value of a system of decorations and honours to recognise extraordinary accomplishments made by individuals, the court expressed concern over the lax standards for granting these decorations and honours.

The court’s order for a high-level committee to examine and confirm the validity of the National Award selection procedure was one of the judgment’s main features. The court voiced concerns with the vague and wide guidelines guiding the awardee selection process and recommended reconsidering the yearly award requirement. This balanced viewpoint showed the court’s dedication to maintaining the importance of these honours while ensuring the procedure is open to the public and free from abuse.

Hence, in this case, the Supreme Court established the constitutional standing of National Awards. The petitioner’s claim that these esteemed awards were equivalent to titles was dismissed. The ruling emphasized the necessity for a more stringent and open nomination procedure to maintain the relevance of the National Awards. It also reaffirmed the value of acknowledging outstanding efforts. To maintain consistency with the values embodied in the Indian Constitution, the court, in this decision, struck a noteworthy balance between the constitution’s requirements and the necessity of recognizing exceptional people.

Conclusion

All titles are abolished by Article 18(1). However, in cases of the military and academic distinction are not prohibited. In the landmark ruling of Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court affirmed the legitimacy of civilian awards. The terms Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Shri, and so on signify the State’s acknowledgment of exceptional work performed by Indian nationals in various sectors. Consequently, national awards fall under Article 18(1) of the Indian Constitution and do not violate the equality of status that the Constitution guarantees.



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here