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.