Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer
Choose language:

Month: April 2023

Article 18

The Indian government has abolished titles in order to promote equity among its citizens and state residents. The condition and particular criterion of Article 18 must be upheld, and they serve to establish equality in the nation. The purpose of eliminating titles is to preserve societal equality and prevent unfair generalization. People with names may foster insecurities and inequality among society’s citizens. As a result, Indian residents’ social equality is preserved.

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution abolishes the titles. According to this Article, no Indian citizen can accept the titles from any foreign states. The provision was brought out to prevent discrimination. The awards like Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan awarded by the Indian Government do not come under the titles so they can be accepted.

(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 objective of introducing Article 18 in the constitution of India is to ensure social equality and to harmonize fraternity among all the people of the country without any discrimination.

In accordance with Article 18, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.” These liberties also cover the freedom to change one’s religion, one’s belief, and one’s concept of belief. On the other side, the prohibition of any titles is the first stipulation of the article. 1948 saw the creation of a dart file for article 12, which was later revised and released as article 18. The recognition and awarding of titles in India were abolished as a result of this piece. Only specific and special titles that could have an effect on social equality and foster insecurity among society’s citizens are covered by this law.

The recognition that Indian citizens have received for their creative work across a variety of disciplines is not prohibited by this article. Although it serves to limit all legislative and executive authority, this article does not protect the citizens of India’s fundamental rights. Titles frequently obstruct citizens from achieving equality, which is a basic principle, as stated in Article 14.

Case Laws:

In Balaji Raghavan vs UOI (1996) 1 SCC 361., the Supreme Court upheld the validity of civilian honors but criticized the government for not exercising restraint in awarding these. It held that the national awards were not meant to be used as titles and those who have done so should forfeit the award.

Indira Jaising v. Supreme court of India AIR 2017 SC 5017 In this case, a petition was filed regarding use of the designation like senior advocate before the name of an advocate. It was held by the Supreme Court that it is not the title it is merely a distinction and thus it is not violative of Article 18 of the Indian constitution.

Conclusion

In article 18, which aims to reduce societal inequality in India, titles are abolished. The “abolition of the title” is accomplished by adhering to certain rules, such as the prohibition on Indian citizens obtaining any titles from other nations. Only a few non-title honors, not covered by Article 18 and its regulations, are given out by the nation. A “Bharat Ratna” is an honour bestowed upon someone who has made outstanding contributions to any discipline. This study quickly discovered that no one is permitted to use this honour as a title in the suffix or prefix of their name according to Indian laws and regulations.

Article 15

Prohibition of discrimination on certain grounds:-
Art 15(1) provides that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of:-
 Religion
 Race
 Caste
 Sex
 Place of birth or
 Any of them

Discrimination is prohibited under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution solely on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. According to the 8th Schedule of the Constitution, India recognises a total of 22 languages. The official languages of the nation are Hindi and English, but more than 1,500 additional languages are also used. A little over 44.63 percent of Indians are native Hindi speakers. Conflicts resulting from different points of view are common, and these confrontations can breed bias. Caste prejudice, which is still pervasive in some areas, is one of the main causes of discrimination in India. In the past, the most common manner of partitioning society was through caste systems, both lower and upper. For the poorer classes, there had existed untouchability. This law was recently declared unlawful in India owing to how bad it is.

Article 15 (2):

The second provision of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution explains further the places and the people covered under Article 15. Under discrimination, no person shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition for access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment. Every citizen has a right to entry to such places, and it is their Fundamental Right to gain access.

In the other provision, utility dedicated to general public use is also covered. The provision states that “ the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public”.

Article 15 (3):

The third clause of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution talks about protective discrimination. Article 15(3) gives the power to the State to make exceptions and special provisions for women and children. To empower women and children, the State can make exceptions like reservations in Local body elections.

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution enables this exception through the third clause of the rule of non-discrimination.

Article 15(4):

This clause of Article 15 ensures that the State can make special provisions for socially and educationally backward citizens for their advancement. The Articles also cover the advancement of SC and ST.

For example, reservation of seats and exemption of fees for certain educational institutions and examinations.

Article 15 (5):

Article 15(5) mentions provisions for reservations concerning admissions to educational institutions, both private and government-aided. The only exception to this reservation is Madrasas/minority educational institutes.

The last provision was added after the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005. The amendment was enforced to nullify the Supreme court judgment in the case of P.A. Inamdar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors AIR 205 SC 3226 ·, declaring that the State can’t impose its reservation policy on minority and non-minority unaided private colleges, including professional colleges. So, to impose the State’s reservation policies on the private unaided colleges, this amendment was enacted.

It inserted clause (5) in Article 15 of the Constitution with a aim to promote the educational advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through special provisions relating to admission of students belonging to these categories in all educational institutions, including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State.. 


Exceptions:-


Art 15 (3), (4) and (5) contains exceptions to the general principal laid down under
Art 15 (1) and (2):-
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes.
 Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to
educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institution.

Case Laws

In State of AP v. USV Balaram AIR 1375 1972 SCR (3) 247, the Supreme Court ruled that caste should not be used to determine a person’s membership in a backward class. The term “backward class” shall mean a caste as a whole that is academically and socially backward. The Court further said that the list of backward classes would be automatically updated in the event that a backward class made enough progress in its social and academic standing to no longer need special assistance from the government.

Choki and her husband conspired to murder their child in Choki v. the State of Rajasthan (AIR 1957 Raj 10), and Choki’s application for release was based on the argument that she is an imprisoned woman with no one to care for her small boy. The judge denied the application, stating that there were no exceptional circumstances and that the Constitution does not contain any clauses that would permit women to get preferential treatment because of their sex. The Supreme Court heard a dispute about the same.

In contrast, the railway administration decided to appoint Inquiry cum Reservation clerks in four major cities, namely Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Chennai, in Union of India v. K.P. Prabhakaran (1997). The judgement specified that only women would be allowed to hold the position. The government’s argument that this clause is protected by Article 15 was rejected by the court (3). According to this, Article 15(3) cannot be interpreted as a restriction or an exemption to the rights protected by Article 16(1). (2).

Conclusion:

Article 15 defines the phrase “certain grounds,” which refers to things like religion, race, caste, sex, or location of birth. It is not illegal to discriminate on other bases, such as qualifications and intelligence. Different treatment does not equal discrimination, according to one such case from Article 15 of the Case Laws of the Indian Constitution. The other pertinent term that iterates the same idea is “only.” According to Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, discrimination on bases other than race, religion, caste, sex, or location of birth is not outlawed.