BALAJI RAGHAVAN S.P. ANANDversusUNION OF INDIA

A                             BALAJI RAGHAVAN
                                 S.P. ANAND
                                       v.
                               UNION OF INDIA

                               DECEMBER 15, 1995
B
       [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)
c          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.

           Words and Phrases ·_.

           Title-Meaning of in the context of Alticle 18(1) of the constitution of
F 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.

      On behalf of the respondent it was contended that almost every
                                                                                   c
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 fundamental duties of every citizen of India. It
    is necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to
    recognise excellence in the performance of these duties. [714-C]

          4. The National Awards do not amount to "titles' within the meaning
B   of Article 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. Bharat
    Ratna and Padma awards are not "titles' within the meaning of Article 18
    of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens for
    exceptional and distinguished services rendered in the field of art, litera-
    ture, science and other fields. These awards are national in character and
C   only those who have achieved distinction at national level can be con·
    sidered for these awards. [715-A. 713-G]

          5. The guidelines for selection of probable recepients are extremely
    wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory for the
    important objective that they seek to achieve. The existing procedure for
D   selection of candidates is wholly vague and is open to abuse at the whims
    and fancies of the persons in authority. Conferment of Padma awards
    without any firm guidelines and fool-proof method of selection is bound to
    breed nepotism, favouritism, patronage and even corruption. [715-C]

          6. The fixing of criteria, which will ensure that the recepients of these
E
    awards are subjected to feelings of respect rather than suspicion, need to
    be examined by a high level Committee that may be appc!nted by the Prime
    Minister in consultation with the President of India. The Committee may
    keep in view that the number of Awards should not be so large as to dilute
    their value. The number of awards under each category must be curtailed
F   to preserve their prestige and dignity. In any given year the awards, all put
    together, may not exceed fifty. [715-E-F]

         (Per Ahmadi, CJ. for himself and Jeevan Reddy, N.P. Singh and S.
    Saghir Ahmad, JJ)

G        1.1. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum. Once the case
    stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements to
    present himself and advance arguments before it. A Constitution Bench
    cannot be expected to fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each
    and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule fixed by
H   the Court. [701-F]
                BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.O.I.                           697

      1.2. Tuo views on the proper interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge:        A

      (1) The first is that the word 'title' in Article 18(1) is nsed in an
expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, orders, decorations or
titles of any sort whatsoever, except those that qualify as military or
academic distinctions. [707-A)
                                                                                  B
       (2) The second is that what is sought to be prohibited are titles of
nobility and those that carry suffixes or prefixes, which violate the concept
of equality by creating a separate class. According to this view, the words
"military or academic distinction" were added by way of abundant caution.
It was not meant to prevent the State from honouring or recognizing               C
meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens. [707-B]

      2.1. It is clear that in enacting Article 18(1), 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   D
the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. However, the framers
did not intend that State should not officially recognise merit or work of
an extraordinary nature. They, however, mandated that the honours con-
ferred by the State should not be used as suffixes or prefixes i.e., as titles,
by the recepients. [713-D-E)                                                      E
      2.2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around
the world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose
Constitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the
practice of regularly conferring civil awards. While other Constitutions
also prohibit the conferment of titles of nobility, ours may perhaps be           F
unique in requiring that awards conferred by the State are not to be used
as suffixes or prefixes. In France, the Palmes Academiques is awarded for
merit in teaching· and for literature, science and other cultural activities.
The Canadian Government established the Order of Canada in 1967 and
it is awarded for a wide variety of fields including agriculture, ballet, G
medicine, philanthropy, etc. [713-F-G]

      2.3. The National Awards do not amount to "titles" within the mean-
ing of Article 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes, and
are not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed by the
provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality does not mandate H
    698                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the Constitution speaks
    of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. In this context Ar Ude
    51A clause (j) exhorts every citizen "to strive towards excellence in all
    spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly
    rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement". It is therefore,
    necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to
B
    recognise excellence in the performance of these duties. [715-A, 714-C]

         Co11stitutio11 Assembly Debates Vol. III and VII; 77ie Framing of
  India's Constitution by B. Shiva Rao, Danzing Co11stitutio11, The Constitution
  of United States of Ameiica, 1787; The Co11stitutio11 of Japa11, 17ie Constitu-
C tion of the Republic of Ireland, 1937; The Constitution of Philippin11es, 1935;
  The Constitution of Iceland, 1944 and 1he Weimar Constitution, 1919,
  referred to.

        3.1. The guidelines for selection of probable recepients are extremely
  wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse aud wholly unsatisfactory for the
D important objective that they seek to achieve. There are no limitations
  prescribed for the maximum number of awards that can be granted in a
  given year or· the maximum number that is permissible in each category.
  Most countries have provided for such limitations in respect of their civil
  awards. That is for the obvious reason that the importance of the awards
E is not dilnted. [715-C-D]

          3.2. The fixing of criteria, which will ensure that the recepients of
    these awards are subjected to feelings of respect rather than suspicion,
    need to be examined by a high level Committee that may be appointed by
    the Prime Minister in consnltation with the President of India. The Com-
F   mittee may keep in view that the number of Awards should not be so large
    as to dilute their value. [715-E-F]

           (Per Ku/dip Singh, J.-concuning)

           1.1. Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not "titles" within Article
G 18 of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens
  for exceptional and distinguished services rendered in art, literatnre,
  science and other fields. These awards are national in character and only
  those who have achieved distinction at national level can be considered for
  these awards. The existing procedure for selection of candidates is wholly
H vague and is open to abuse at the whims and fancies of the persons in
                BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.                          699

authority. Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and A
fool-proof method of selection is bound to breed nepotism, favouritism,
patronage and even corruption. [716-A-B, DJ

       1.2. There has been no application of mind at all by the successive
Governments and the system of giving Padma awards is getting
degenerated with the passage of time. It has already reached a point where       B
political or narrow group interests are being rewarded by those in office
for the time being. [717 -Fl

      Parliamentary Debates, November 27, 1970, referred to.

      2.1. To ensure that Padma awards are truely national in character
                                                                                 c
and above party and political considerations, it is suggested that a com-
mittee at national level be constituted by the Prime Minister of India in
consultation with the President of India.which may include, among other,
the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee and
the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. At the State level similar            D
committees may be framed by the Chief Minister of the State in consult-
ation with the Governor. The Committee may, among others, include
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Chief Justice of the State or his
nominee and the leader of the Opposition. [718-C-D]

      2.2. The function of the State committees may only be to recommend         E
the names of the persons, who in their opinion deserve a particular award.
The final decision shall have to be taken by the National Committee on
Awards. No award should be conferred except on the recommendation of
the National Committee. The recommendation must have.the approval of
the Prime Minister and the President of India. The number of awards              F
under each category must be curtailed to preserve their prestige and
dignity. In any given year the awards, all put together, may not exceed fifty.
                                                                     [718-E]
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case (C) No.
9of1994.                                                                         G
                                   With

      Transferred Case (C) No. 1 of 1995.

      (Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution of India.)                     H
    700                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         M.K. Banerjee, Attorney General of India, N. Santosh Hegde, Tony
    George, Romy Chacko, N. Sudhakaran, P. Parmeswaran and Bijan Ghosh
    for the appearing parties.

          The Judgments of the Court were delivered by

B         AHMADI, CJI : 1. The short but interesting question that arises for
    our consideration is :

            "Whether the Awards, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma
            Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called "The National
            Awards") are "Titles" within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the
c           Constitution of India ?"

          2. Before dealing with the legal aspects of the question at issue, we
    may briefly set out the factual matrix of the two cases. The two petitions
    which have given rise to this issue were filed in the High Courts of Kerala
D   and Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), respectively. The petitioner in
    T.C.(C) No. 9/94, Balaji Raghavan (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 1') ·
    had filed O.P. No. 2110/92 (hereinafter called 'the O.P.') on February 13,
    1992 before the Kerala High Court. The petition filed under Article 226 of
    the Constitution, sought, by way of a writ of mandamus, to prevent the
    respondent from conferring any of the National Awards. The petitioner in
E   T.C.(C) No. 1195, S.P. Anand (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 2') filed
    Misc. petition No. 1900/92 (hereinafter called 'the M.P.') on August 24,
    1992, before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, praying
    for the same relief.

p         3. In the Kerala High Court, the two contesting parties filed written
    submissions and counters between September 30, 1992 and April 7, 1994.
    During this period, the High Court of Kerala did not bear oral arguments
    or pass any interim order. However, in the other case, a Division Bench of
    the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), on August 25, 1992,
    through an ex-parte order, issued notice to the respondent and also
G   restrained it from conferring on any person or persons any of the National
    Awards, until further orders. The respondent filed T.P. (C) Nos. 6 & 7
    before this Court, seeking to transfer the case and to vacate the ex-parte
    order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated August 25, 1992. On
    January 8, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court, while refusing to transfer
H   the case to itself, directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to give its
                BALAJI RAGHAVAN S.P. ANAND v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, CJ.]            701

        decision on the application filed by the respondent for vacating the ex- A
        parte order, on or before January 20, 1993. On January 20, 1993, a Division
        Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vacated its earlier order dated
        August 25, 1992. Meanwhile, the respondent filed T.P.(C) No. 811-812/93,
        by which it sought transfer of both the O.P. and the M.P. to this Court. On
        October 29, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter B
        be posted before a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India on
        January 17, 1994. On that day, a bench of this Court presided over by the
        then Chief Justice issued notice in T.P. Nos. 811-812/93 and stayed further
        proceedings in both the petitions. Later, on March 7, 1994, this Court
        transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself.
                                                                                    c
               4. Thereafter, on September 11, 1995, T.C.(C) Nos. 9/94 and 1/95
        were posted before a Division Bench of this Court. The last date for
        submission of written briefs by both sides was fixed and each side was
        allotted time for oral arguments. While counsel for the petitioner No. 1
        and the respondent submitted their written briefs within the stipulated D
        time, the petitioner No. 2, however, failed to do so. The date for the hearing
        before this Constitution Bench was fixed for November 14, 1995. On
        October 31, 1995, the petitioner No. 2 was given notice of this fact.
        However, he did not present himself before the Constitution Bench and no
        arguments were advanced on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion
l
        of the hearing and the judgment being reserved, he sent communications E
        dated November 1, 1995 and November 6, 1995, which were received by
        the Supreme Court on November 15, 1995 and November 21, 1995 respec-
        tively, requesting that his petition should be delisted or else he should be
        given a hearing by the Constitution Bench. It is not possible to accede to
        his request. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum. Once the F
        case stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements
        to present himself and advance arguments before it. A Constitution Bench
        cannot be expected to fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each
        and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule fixed by the
        Court. Hence we have refused to entertain his request.
                                                                                    G
    '          It would now be relevant to notice the events connected with the
        institution of the National Awards. It is important to note that a policy of
        instituting National Awards and Honours had been adopted even before
        the Constitution of India was formally drafted. On February 13, 1948, the
        Prime Minister's Committee on Honours and Awards was set up under the H
    702                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Chairmanship of the Constitutional Adviser to the Government of India,
    Sir B.N. Rau. It's purpose was to recommend the number and nature of
    civil and military awards; the machinery for making recommendations for
    the granting of these awards; the frequency with which they were to be
    awarded, etc. The Committee worked on the premise that orders and
    decorations, carrying no title, were not meant to be prohibited. It submitted
B   its report on March 9, 1941! and gave extensive suggestions in respect of
    each of the subjects upon which it had been required to give its recom-
    mendations. Thereafter, in a series of meetings held between May 30, 1941!
    and October 29, 1953, the Cabinet had occasion to discuss the nature and
    conditions of the proposed National Awards.
c
           6. The National Awards were formally instituted in January, 1954 by
    two Presidential Notifications No. l-Pres./54 and No. 2-Pres./54 dated
    January 2, 1954 which were subsequently superseded by four fresh Notifica-
    tions, viz. No. l-Pres./55, 2-Pres./55, 3-Pres./55 and 4-Pres./55 dated
D   January 8, 1955. The purpose for which these awards were to be given are
    as follows :

     NAME OF THE
                               PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN
       AWARD
     Bharat Ratna         For exceptional Service towards the advancement of
E                         art, literature & sicence & in recognition of public
                          service of the highest order.
     Padma Vibhushan For exceptional and distinguished service in any field.
                     including service rendered by Govt. servants.
     Padma Bhushan        For distinguished service of a high order in any field
F                         including the service rendered by Govt. servants.
     Padma Shri           For distinguished service in any field including
                          service rendered by Govt. servants.

          The aforementioned Presidential Notifications also provide that any
G person, without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex, shall be        '
    eligible for t11ese awards and also that the decorations may be awarded
    posthumously.

          7. A press Note was issued by the Government of India on April 17,
H 1968 making it clear that the practice of using Civilian Awards, such as,
        BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMADl,CJ.j                    703

Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, as titles on letter- A
heads, invitation cards, posters, books, etc., is against the scheme of the
Government as the awards are not titles and their use along with the names
of individuals is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which has
abolished titles. It was also emphasised in the press note that civilian
awards should not be attached as suffixes or prefixes to the names of the B
awardes to give them the appearance of titles.

      8. In the year 1969 and again in the year 1970, the late Acharya J.B.
Kripalani, who was then a Member of the Lok Sabha, moved a non-official
Bill entitled 'The Conferment of Decoration on_ Persons (Abolition) Bill,
1969' for their abolition. In the draft statement of Objects and Reasons      C
appended to the Bill, the main points were thus stated :

     (a) Although Article 18 had abolished titles, they were sought to be
brought in by the back door in the form of decorations.

      (b) The decorations were not always awarded according to merit, D
and the Government of the day is not the best Judge or the merits or the
eminence of the recipient.

      (c) These "new titles'' were at first given to very few, exceptional
persons; this small stream had since become quite a flood.
                                                                              E
      The Bill led to an elaborate debate in Parliament but was ultimately
defeated.

      9. On August 8, 1977, the institution of the National Awards was
cancelled, vide Notification No. 65-Pres./77. On .January 25, 1980 the
Government revived these awards by Notification No. 25/Pres./80 which         F
cancelled the earlier Notification No. 65- Pres./77 dated August 8, 1977.
Since then, the National Awards have been conferred annually on the
Republic Day.

     10. We may now refer to the text of Article 18 of the Constitution       G
which reads as follows :

        "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.   H
    704                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          (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 under the State shall,
    without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or
B
    office of any kind from or under any foreign State."

           ll. The learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 pointed out that while
    Article 18(1) prohibits the conferment of 'titles' by the State with the
    exception of military and academic distinctions, it does not define the
C   words "titles" and "distinction". In an effort to throw light upon this aspect,
    he referred us to the legislative history of the provision. According to him,
    the framers of the Constitution had intended to do away with the practice
    followed by the British of conferring various 'titles' upon Indian citizens
    who curried favour with them. This practice and recipients of the titles had
D   earned the contempt of the people of pre-independent India and hence
    such pernicious practices were proposed to be prohibited in Independent
    India through 1his provision. According to hin1, vie\vcd against this back-
    ground, word 'title' should be given the widest possible meaning and
    amplitude in order to give effect to the legislative intent. Since the only
    exception to this rule has been carved out in respect of military and
E   academic distinctions, it follows that all other distinctions are impliedly
    prohibited. We were then referred to several dictionaries to ascertain the
    meaning of the words 11 Title, "Order", 1'Distinction 11 , 1'Award11 and "Designa-
    tion". It was sought to be demonstrated that even the dictionary meaning
    of t.he word 'title' is wide enough to encompass all other similar concepts.
F
           12. It was further contended that the National Awards make distinc-
    tions according to rank. They are divided into superior and inferior classes
    and the holders of Bharat Ratna have been assigned the 9th place in the
    Warrant of Precedence (which indicates the rank of different dignitaries
G   and high officials of the State). It was pointed out that several recipients
    were following the practice of appending these awards to their names,
    using them as titles in their letter-heads, publications am! at public func-
    tions. This practice has continued unabated despite the fact that the
    Govermnent had issued a Press Note in 1968 prohibiting such conduct.
    Says the learned counsel, all these factors have resulted in the creation of
H   a rank of persons on the basis of recognition by the State, in the same
         BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.O.l.[AHMADl,CJ.]                            705

manner as was achieved by the conferment of nobility during the British A
rule. This, according to him, is clearly violative of Article 14 read with the
Preamble to the Constitution which guarantee to every citizen, equality of
status. It was also pointed out that there are no objective guidelines for the
manner in which the recipients are to be chosen and over the years, these
awards have degenerated into rewards proffered by the powers that be i.e., B
the Government of the day, in great numbers, to those who serve their
political ends.

       13. The learned Attorney General for India prefaced his arguments
on behalf of the Union of India by stating that almost every country in the
world, including those with republican and socialist constitutions, follows             C
the practice of conferring awards for meritorious services rendered by its
citizens. The learned counsel then referred us to several dictionaries for
the meanings of 11 T;tle", "Award11 , 11 Distinction", "Decoration11 and 11 0rder11 •
He then staled that, according to the ordinary and contextual meaning in
Article 18, the word "title" means a title of honour, rank, function or office          D
in which there is a distinctive appellation. An appellation, according to him,
is a name or title by which a person is called or known, something which
is normally prefixed or suffixed, for example, Sir, KC.LE., Maharaja,
Nawab, Dewan Bahadur, etc. The learned counsel submitted that it is these
appellations that appear as prefixes or suffJXes which are sought to be
interdicted by Article 18(1). Since the National Awards are not titles of               E
nobility and are not to be used as suffixes or prefixes, they are not
prohibited by Article 18. In this regard, we were referred to the Press Note
dated April 17, 1968 issued by the Government of India. The learned
counsel further submitted that the words "not being a military or academic
distinction' in Article 18 have been used ex abundanti caute/a. Since                   F
military and academic distinctions, such as, General, Colonel, Professor,
Mahavir Chakra, B.A., etc. do carry suffJXes or preflXes, the framers of the
Constitution, by way of abundant caution, expressly mentioned that they
would be exempted. It follows that distinctions which do not carry suffJXes
or prefixes or will not be affected by the interdiction in Article 18(1). At
this stage, the learned counsel took us through the relevant parts of the               G
discussions in the Constituent Assembly that led to the framing of Article
18(1) to support the aforesaid stance.

     14. The learned Attorney General then reiterated his argument that
republican nations across the world have similar award for recognizing                  H
    706                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A meritorious services and these National Awards are not violative of the
    right to equality as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. In this context,
    we were referred to civil awards instituted and conferred by the United
    Kingdom, the United States of America, the Republic of France, the
    Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Canada and the former Soviet
    Union. In response to our query for guidelines that control the manner of
B   selection of the recipients of these awards, the learned Attorney General
    delivered to us a copy of the communique that was sent to him from the
    Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard.

         15. Mr. Santosh Hegde, Senior counsel, responded to our request to
C act as amicus curiae and advanced arguments before us. He began by
  stating that the fact that these awards are being grossly misused had
  occasioned one of the writ petitions. He referred us to the views of eminent
  authors, Mr. D.D. Basu and Mr. H.M. Seervai on the issue at hand.
  Thereafter,· he led us through the relevant parts of the discussions in the
  Constituent Assembly before submitting that it is clear that the Constitu-
D tion does envisage a situation where meritorious services rendered by
  individuals are to be recognised by the State, through the conferment of
  awards. However, to avoid the criticism of creating of separate class, it
  needs to be ensured that these awards are not used as prefJXes or suffixes.
  He concurred with the submission of the learned Attorney General that
E the words "military or academic distinction" had been used by way of
  abundant caution. Commenting on the misuse of these awards, he sub-
  mitted that the maximum number of awards that can be conferred should
  be specified. He also felt that ordinarily, public servants and civil servants
  should not be eligible for these awards, unless there are extraordinary
  reasons.
F
           16. We may now address the central issue in the case. At the outset,
    we may point out that the marginal heading of Article 18, which reads as
    !!Abolition of Tit1es" is an incorrect summarization of its contents as it does
    not seek to abolish titles granted in the past. Sir Ivor Jennings, the noted
G   constitutional lawyer, has described Article 18 as "not a right at all, but a
    restriction on executive legislative power."

          17. from the aforementioned discussion, two views on the proper
    interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge :

H         (1) The first, put forth by the petitioners, is that the word 'title' in
        BALAJI RAGHAVAN S.P. ANAND v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, CJ. J              707

Article 18(1) is used in an expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, A
orders, decorations or titles of any sort whatsoever, except those that
qualify as military or academic distinctions.

       (2) The second, advanced by the learned Attorney General and Mr.
Santosh Hegde, is that what is sought to be prohibited are titles of nobility   B
and those that carry suffJXes or prefJXes, which violate the concept of
equality by creating a separate class. According to this view, the words
"military or academic distinction" were added by way of abundant caution.
It was not meant to prevent the State from honouring or recognizing
meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens.
                                                                                c
       18. We may now refer to the developments preceding the introduc-
 tion of Article 18(1) as it presently stands and the debates thereon amongst
the framers of G,_ Constitution. The Constituent Assembly, as we all know,
functioned by constituting Committees which were expected to deliberate
and take decisions on specific issues of Constitutional law to be incor-        D
porated in the Constitution. On January 21, 1947, three such Committees
were constituted by the Assembly, one of them being the Advisory Com-
mittee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribals and Excluded Areas
(hereinafter called "The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights").
Thereafter, the Assembly met at regular intervals to discuss the reports
submitted by the various Committees. On August 29, 1947, the Assembly           E
appointed a Drafting Committee which was to analyse the reports of these
Committees, take note of the discussions in the Assembly regarding them,
and prepare the text of a Draft Constitution. This Draft Constitution came
to be prepared during February 1948 and on November 15, 1948, the
clause-by-clause discussion of the Draft Constitution began in the Assemb-      F
ly. This process culminated on November 26, 1949 when the Constitution
as settled by the Constituent Assembly was adopted by it.

       19. The provision that is now Article 18(1) was discussed and formu-
lated in the report of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights. This
Committee had, in view of its wide agenda, appointed two Sub-Commit- G
tees, one on Fundamental Rights and the other on Minorities. The former
Sub-Committee was chaired by Acharya J.B. Kripalani. On March 25, 1947,
the present Article 18(1) was discussed for the first time in the Sub-Com-
mittee on Fundamental Rights. The agenda for the meeting was the dis-
cussion of the note prepared by Mr. K.T. Shah on Fundamental Rights H
    708                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A which contained five clauses relating to the prohibition of, and restrictions
    on, the conferment and acceptance of titles, honours, distinctions and
    privileges. Clause 3 of this note read :

             "No artificial or man-made distinction between citizen and citizens,
             by way of titles, honours, privileges - whether personal or in-
B            heritable, - shall be recognised by and enforceable under this
             constitution, or laws made thereunder : provided that academic
             degrees, official titles, or popular honorifics, whether of Indian or
             foreign origin, or conferment, may be permitted in so far as they ·
             create no privileged class or heritable distinction."
c          At the meeting, Mr. K.T. Shah formally proposed the abolition of
    titles and the privileged class of title holders. In the final report of the
    Sub-Committee, the relevant part of Clause 8 read as follows :

             "No titles except those denoting an office or a profession shall be
D            conferred by the Union."

           20. This clause was considered by the Advisory Committee on Fun-
    damental Rights on April 21, 1947. A number of influential members
    expressed reservations about the abolition of titles. Mr. C. Rajagopalachari
E   suggested that it should be left open to the legislature to deddt from time
    to time whether titles are good or bad. He stated that, especially if there
    was as nationalist, communist or socialist policy, and the profit motive was
    removed, there would be a great necessity for creating a new motive in the
    form of titles. Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar and Mr. M. Ruthnaswamy
    also supported the omission of this clause. The latter stated that equality
F   is not opposed to distinction and even in a democracy, it must be provided.
    Mr. K.T. Shah, however, urged that the conferring of titles offended against
    the fundamental principle of equality sought to be enshrined in the Con-
    stitution. Mr. K.M. Panikkar, while suggesting half-way solution stated :

             "Order and decorations are not prohibited. The heritable titles by
G            the Union undoubtedly create inequality. In the Soviet Union many
             encouragements are given on account of certain national policies.
               What I am submitti11g is that we must make a clear disti11ction
             between titles which are heritable a11d thereby create inequality and
             titles give11 by govemments for the pupose of rewarding merit or by
H            recognising merit. There are two methods that exist. As you know
        BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMAD!,0.J                       709

        one is by title and the other by decoration. What we have to aim A
        at ;s really the question of heritable titles and we should see that
        provision is made for decorations and various other things because
        it is only titles that have been prohibited, not decorations and
        honours. 11

                                                          (Emphasis added)       B
Pressed to a vote, the suggestion that the clause should be omitted was lost
by 14 votes to 10; but Mr. Panikkar's proposal that only heritable titles
should be forbidden was accepted by Mr. Shah and was unanimously
adopted by the Committee. The relevant part of clause 7 of the                   C
Committee's Interim Report to the Constituent Assembly read :

      "No heritable title shall be conferred by the Union."

       21. On April 30, 1947, this clause was discussed in the Constituent
Assembly. While moving the clause, Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel observed that           D
titles were often being abused for corrupting the public life of the country
and, therefore, it was better that their abolition should be provided as a
fundamental right. He informed the Assembly that it had been decided to
drop the word 'heritable' as it had become a matter of controversy. While
moving the amendment, Mr. M.R. Masani stated :
                                                                                 E
        "This will mean that the free Indian State will not confer any titles
         of any kind, whether heritable or otherwise, that is, for the life of
         the incumbent. It may be possible for the Union to honour some
         of its citizens who distinguish themselves in several walks of life
        like science and the arts, with other kinds of honours not amount-       F
        ing to titles; but the idea of a man putting something before or after
        his name as a reward for service rendered will not be possible in a
        free India."

                                                         (Emphasis added)

While supporting the amendment, Sri Prakasa stated :

        "Sir, I should like to make it plain that this clause does not prohibit
        even the State from bestowing a proper honour. We are distin-
        guishing between titles and honours. A title is something that hangs
        to one's name. I wider.itand it is a British innovation. Other States H
    710                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           also honour their citizens for good work but those citizens do not
            necessarily /Jang their titles to their names as people in Britain or
            British-govemed parts of the world do. That is all that this clause
            seeks to do. ........... we want to abolish this co"oding, co~pting
            practice which makes individuals go about currying favour with
            authority to get particular distinctions."
B
                                                                 (Emphasis added)

    While opposing the amendment, Seth Govind Das and Mr. H.V. Karnath
    complained that the clause covered only the future conferment of titles and
C   that it was necessary also to abolish titles conferred earlier by the "alien
    imperialist Government". Mr. Vallabhbhai Patel in replying to the debate
    referred to the point raised by selh Govind Das and Mr. Karnath. Pleading
    for forgetting "all about past titles", he said that the Assembly was really
    legislating for the future and not for the past; some people who had
    obtained titles from the British Government after they had "spent so much"
D   and "worked so hard" for them, should be left alone; disturbing their titles
    might be "interpreted as a sign of spiteful feeling".

    After the acceptance of the amendment moved by Mr. M.R. Masani the
    relevant part of the clause read as follows :

E         "No title shall be conferred by the Union."

          22. With a minor modification, the provision appeared as Article
    12(1) in the Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee :

             "Article 12(1) - No title shall be conferred by the State."
F
           23. The Drafting Committee and its Special Committee, after con-
    sidering the various comments, suggestions and amendments received on
    draft article 12, suggested further amendments. The Constitutional Ad-
    visor, Sir B.N. Rau, supported these new amendments and stated :
G            "Presumably it is not intended that titles such as "Field Marshal",
             11
                Admiral", "Air Marshal11 , 11 Chief Justice" or "Doctor" indicating an
             office or profession, should be discontinued. It may be pointed out
              that the term "State" as defined includes "all local or other
              authorities within the territory of India". Nor, presumably, is it
H             intended to prohibit the award of medals or decorations for gal-
        BALAIIRAGHAVAN S.P.ANANDv. U.O.l. [AHMADI, CJ.]                   711

        lantry, humanitarian work, etc. not carrying any title."                 A
The Draft;ng Committee redrafted Article 12(1) to read :

        "Hereditary titles or other privileges of birth shall not be conferred
        by the State."
                                                                                 B
       24. It is important to note that when, on November 30, 1948, draft
article 12 came up for final discussion before the Constituent Assembly,
Dr. Ambedkar did not move the amendment for redrafting clause ( 1) of
Draft Article 12 which has earlier been accepted by the Drafting Commit-
tee.
                                                                                 c
The Draft article, as presented to the Assembly, read as it was framed
originally by the Drafting Committee :

      "(1) No title shall be conferred by the State."
                                                                                 D
      Mr. •T.T. Krishnamachari sought to add the words "not being a
military or academic distinction" after the word title in clause (1). He felt
that this was necessary, firstly, because certain types of titles had to be
permitted, the Government having, for example, already decided to confer
certain military distinctions; secondly, because the State might decide to
revive academic titles like Mahamahopadhyaya, and lastly, because a              E
university might not be completely divorced from a state in view of the
definition of the latter in draft article 7. (Article 12 of the Constitution).

       25. The amendment moved by Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari was ac-
cepted by the Constituent Assembly on December 1, 1948 and the final             F
clause [later renumbered by the Drafting Committee as Article 18(1)] read
as it does today.

     Note : The quotations that appear in the preceding paragraphs have
been extracted from Volumes III and VII of the Constituent Assembly
Debates and from "The Framing of India's Constitution", a study in five          G
volumes, edited by B. Shiva Rao.

      26. We may also refer to the views expressed by Sir B.N. Rau. As
already stated, he was appointed the Chairman of the Prime Minister's
Committee on Awards and Honours which was appointed as early as in H
    712                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   1948. At the very first meeting of the Committee, one of the members
    raised the issue of the validity of the proposed awards, in view of article
    12 of the Draft Constitution which sought to abolish titles. Sir B.N. Rau,
    who had, in his capacity as Member of the Drafting Committee contributed
    to the discussion regarding Draft Article 12, pointed out that 'titles' did
B   not necessarily include all orders and distinctions. He referred to the U.S.
    Constitution which forbids the grant of the titles of nobility but allows
    decorations such as the Congressional Medal of Honour and the Distin-
    guished Service Cross. He stated that in Constitutions where orders and
    decorations as well as titles are intended to be prohibited, separate men-
C   tion is usually made, as had been done in Article 73 and Article 109 of the
    Danzing and Weimar Constitutions respectively.

         27. We may now refer to the constitutional provisions of certain other
    countries analogous to Article 18(1) of our Constitution :

D         1. Article 73 of the Danzing Constitution (as it then was) read :

    ''Titles - with the exception of academic degrees - shall not be awarded
    except when they denote an office or a profession.

    Orders and Decorations may not be awarded by the free State.
E
    No national of Danzig may accept titles or orders."

          2. The Constitution of TJze United States of America, 1787.

            Article 1, Section 9 Clause (8): "No title of nobility shall be granted
F
            by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit
            or trust under them shall, without consent of the Congress, accept
            any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from
            any King, Prince, or foreign State. 11

G         3. T7ze Constitution of Japan.

            Article XIV : "Peers and Peerage shall not be recognised. No
            privilege shall accompany any award of honour, decoration or any
            distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the life time
H           of the individual who holds or hereafter may receive it."
        BALAJIRAGHAVAN S.P.ANANDv. U.0.I. [AHMADI, CJ.]                     713

      4. The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, 1937                         A
         Section 40(2) : "1. Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the
         State.

         2. No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen
         except with the prior approval of the Government."                        B

         Similar provisions are to be found in :

      (i) Article 3, Section 1, Sub-section (9) of the Constitution of Philip-
pines, 1935;
                                                                                   c
      (ii) Article 78 of the Constitution of Iceland, 1944; and

      (iii) Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution, 1919.

        28. From the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that
;., enacting Article 18(1), the framers of the Constitution sought to put an       D
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 recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. They,           E
however, mandated that the honours conferred by the State should not be
used as suffixes or prefixes, i.e. as titles, by the recipients.

       29. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around
the world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose
Constitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the    F
practice of regularly conferring civil awards. In the United States, the
Presidential Medal of Freedom, instituted in 1957, honours Americans and
others who make exceptional contributions to national security or interest,
world peace, culture and so forth. In France, the Pa/mes Academiques is
awarded for merit in teaching and for literature, science and other cultural       G
activities. There are also other awards for social merit, public health,
tourism, craftsmanship, postal merit, etc. The Canadian Government es-
tablished the Order of Canada in 1967 and it is awarded for a wide variety
of fields including agriculture, ballet, medicine, philanthropy, etc. The
Order of Canada has three levels of membership - Companion, Officer and
Member. The total number of living companions may not at any time                  H
    714                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A exceed 150. No more than 15 Companions, 46 Officers and 92 Members
    may be appointed in any given year. The Order of Merit which is said to
    be the inspiration behind the National Awards, was instituted in 1902, and
    is awarded for outstanding service by British Scientists, writers, or other
    distinguished civilians. It is limited to 24 members. It does not carry any
    title or rank.
B
          30. The National Awards are not violative of the principles of
    equality as gnaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution. The theory of
    equality does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A
    of the Constitution speaks of the fundamental duties of every citizen of
C   India. In this context, we may refer to the various clauses of Article 51A
    and specifically Gl which exhorts every citizen "to strive towards excellence
    in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation
    constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement." It is,
    therefore, necessary that there should be a system of awards and decora-
    tions to recognise excellence in the performance of these duties.
D
           31. Hereditary titles of nobility conflict with the principle of equality
    insofar as they create a separate, identifiable class of people who are
    distinct from the rest of society and have access to special privileges. Titles
    that are not hereditary but carry suff1Xes or prefixes have the same effect,
E   though, the degree may be lesser. While other Constitutions also prohibit
    the conferment of titles of nobility, ours may perhaps be unique in requir-
    ing that awards conferred by the State are not to be used as suff=s or
    prefixes. This difference is borne out of the peculiar problems that these
    titles had created in pre-independent India and the earnest desire of the
    framers to prevent the repetition of these circumstances in Free, Inde-
F   pendent India.

          32. It has been contended before us that over the years, the purpose
    for which these awards were instituted has been diluted and they are
  granted liberally to persons who are undeserving of them. The perversion
  of the system was the motivating factor behind the Bill introduced in
G Parliament by Acharya Kripalani to abolish these decorations. It is to be
  remembered that Acharya Kripalani was the Chairman of the Sub-Com-
  mittee on Fundamental Rights where the present Article 18{1) was
  originally formulated. He was, therefore, fully aware of the exact import of
  Article 18(1). It is significant that in the debates in Parliament, the thrust
H of his attack was on the misuse of these decorations. However, it is
         BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMADI,O.J                   715

axiomatic that the misuse of a concept does not '\hange its inherent nature. A
The National Awards do not amount to "titles'" within the meaning of
Artide 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefJXes. If this is
done, the defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him or
her by following the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the
four notifications creating these National A~ards.
                                                                              B
      33. The guidelines contained in the communique from the Ministry
of Home Affairs towards the selection of probable recipients are extremely
wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory for the
important objective that they seek to achieve. There are no limitations
prescribed for the maximum number of awards that can be granted in a C
given year or the maximum number that is permissible in each category.
The Prime Minister's Committee on Awards & Honours, 1948 had recom-
mended certain limitations in terms of numbers but these have not been
incorporated in the extant guidelines. As stated earlier, most countries have
provided for such limitations in respect of their civil awards. That is for D
the obvious reason that the importance of the awards is not diluted. While
in the grant of the Bharat Ratna award sufficient restraint has been shown,
the same cannot be said of all other awards. The exercise of such restraint
is absolutely necessary to safeguard the importance of the awards. That is
why the need for necessarily granting awards every year also requires
reconsideration. These and the fixing of other criteria, which will ensure E
that the recipients of these awards are subjected to feelings of respect
rather than suspicion, need to be examined by a high level Committee that
may be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the President
of India. Even otherwise it is time that such a committee looks into the
working of the existing guidelines in view of the experience gained. We say F
no mo.re as we have entrusted the task of setting up of the Committee to
high level functionaries. We may only say that the Committee may keep in
view our anxiety that the nu,;,_ber of Awards should not be so large as to
dilute tl1eir value. We may point out that in some countries, including
U .S.A, the total number of Awards to be given is restricted. With these
observations we dispose of both the petitions - cases with no order as to G
costs.


     34. Before we part with the case, we would like to record our
appreciation for the assistance provided to us, at our request, by Mr.
Santosh Hegde, Senior Counsel.                                         H
    716                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A        KULDIP SINGH, J. : I have read the opinion proposed by AM.
  Ahmadi CJI. I agree with the Chief Justice that Bharat Raina and r dma
  awards are not "titles" within Article 18 of the Constitution of India. These
  awards can be given to the citizens for exceptional and distinguished
  services rendered in art, literature, science and other fields. These awards
B are national in character and only those who have achieved distinction at
  national level can be considered for these awards. The question to be
  considered, however, is whether the purpose of instituting these awards is
  being a~;1ieved and these are being conferred on the deserving persons.
  The history and experience shows that, in the beginning, these awards were
  given to a limited number of persons but in the recent years there have
C been floodgates of awards for the persons who are well known, lesser
  known and even unknown. The Padma awards have been conferred on
  businessmen and industrialists who have multiplied their own wealth and
  have hardly helped the growth of national interest. Persons with little or
  no contribution in any field can be seen masquerading as Padma awardees.
D The existing procedure for selection of candidates is wholly vague and is
  open to abuse at the whims and fancies of the p~rsons in authority.
  Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and fool-proof
  method of selection is bound to breed nepotism, favoritism, patronage and
  even corruption.

E          During the British occupation India has had a spate of title hunters
    who brought degradation and much harm to healthy public life. The title
    hunters have always been considered a menace to the safe growth of a
    society. Though the Padma awards are not titles but in case these awards
    are given at the whims of the authorities - without there being proper
    criteria and method of selection - they are bound to do more harm to the
F
    society than the title-seekers did during the British regime.

          While opposing the Bill titled "The Conferment of Decorations on
    Persons (Abolitio~) Bill, 1969" moved by Acharya J.B. Kripalani in the
    Parliament, Mr. N.K.P. Salve in his speech (Parliamentary Debates,
G   November 27, 1970) stated as under :

             "SHRI N.K.P. SALVE: I am aware that the decorations have been
             bestowed indiscriminately on businessmen and others. In fact, one
             of my suggestions is that any decoration awarded to any person
H            who is found guilty of any 'commercial offence' should be
      BALAIJRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.]                  717

         withdrawn. We should be extremely, strict about the awarding of A
         decorations ....... .

        SHRIN.K.P. SALVE: I am entirely in agreement with Shri Madhu
        Limaye that some cf them have received these decorations without
        deserving them in the least if at all they deserved anything, it was
        something else. But they have received decorations. In fact, it is     B
        within my knowledge that some of them have put their decorations
        to commercial exploitation. Jn fact, a certain managing director of
        a company Wrote a letter to me sometime ago. On his letterhead
        was written 'Ex-Rai Bahadur, Padma Vibhushan' so and so ........

        The criteria for awarding these decorations are not very clear. The
                                                                               c
        Bharat Ratna is to be awarded for exceptional service towards the
        advancement of art, literature and science, whereas the Padma
        Vibhushan is to be awarded for exceptional and distinguished
        service. Bharat Raina is for exceptional service and Padma Vib-
        hushan is for exceptional and distinguished service. Exceptional       D
        and distinguished service must be given the number one decoration
        and not number two. So, there is a patent fallacy in this type of
        criteria which has been laid down. It seems some bureaucrat has
        written this without understanding all these anomalies in the mat-
        ter. I do hope that they do some amount of rationalisation of this     E
        matter."

       The above words were spoken in the Parliament about quarter of a
century back. There has been no application of mind at all by the successive
Governments and the system of giving Padma awards is getting
degenerated with the passage of time. It has already reached a point where     F
political or narrow group interests are being rewarded by those in office
for the time being.

       The examination of initial deliberations regarding institution of these
awards show that in the first meeting of the committee held on February G
27, 1948 under the Chairmanship of Mr. B.N. Rau, it was recommended
that an extremely high standard should be prescribed for these awards and
total number of award to be given in each category should be limited and
fixed. It was recommended that awards should be made very sparingly and
only on grounds of outstanding merit. They should not be made merely
because there happen to be vacancies in a particular category. The Ministry H
    718                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of Home Affairs, Government of India, prepared a note dated January 10,
    1953 for consideration of the Cabinet. It was proposed to institute suitable
    awards for meritorious public services. The note clearly suggested that the
    number of recipients in various awards must be restricted. The report was
    considered by the Cabinet presided over by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and was
    accepted with some minor modifications.
B
          Therefore, to ensure that Padma awards arc truly national in char-
    acter and above party and political considerations. I suggest that a com-
    mittee at national level be constituted by the Prime Minister of India in
    consultation with the President of India which may include, among others,
C   the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief justice of India or his nominee and
    the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. At the State level similar
    committees may be formed by the Chief Minister of the State in consult-
    ation with the Governor. The committee may, among others, include
    Speaker of the Legislative A'Sembly, Chief Justice of the State or his
    nominee and the leader of the Opposition.
D
          The functmn of the State committees may only be to recommend the
    names of the persons, who in their opinion are deserving of a particular
    award. The final decision shall have to be taken by the National Committee
    on Awards. No award should be conferred except on the recommendation
E   of the National Committee. The recommendation must have the approval
    of the Prime Minister and the President of India.

          The number of awards under each category must be curtailed to
    preserve their prestige and dignity. In any given year the awards, all put
    together, may not exceed fifty.
F            The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

    v.s.s.                                                   Petitions disposed of.