Article 18 of the Constitution of India abolishes titles and reflects the constitutional commitment to equality and equal citizenship. It prevents the State from creating artificial distinctions of status through titles and places restrictions on citizens accepting titles or honours from foreign States.
- Meaning of Article 18
- Constitutional Text of Article 18
- Article 18(1) – Abolition of Titles
- What Is a “Title”?
- Why Were Titles Abolished?
- Article 18(1) and Military Distinctions
- Article 18(1) and Academic Distinctions
- Article 18(2) – Foreign Titles
- Article 18(3) – Persons Holding Office Under the State
- Article 18(4) – Foreign Presents, Emoluments and Offices
- Article 18(3) and Article 18(4)
- Article 18 and National Awards
- Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India
- National Awards and Article 18
- Are “Dr.” and “Advocate” Prohibited Titles?
- Article 18 and Equality
- Article 18 and Democracy
- Important Case on Article 18
- Important Features of Article 18
- Common Confusions
- Article 18 and Article 14
- Article 18 and Article 17
- Important Points to Remember
- Quick Revision
- Conclusion
The provision is part of the Right to Equality under Part III of the Constitution. At the same time, Article 18 does not prevent the State from recognising academic and military distinctions. This distinction is important when understanding the constitutional position on awards and honours.
Meaning of Article 18
Article 18 seeks to prevent the creation of hereditary or artificial distinctions among citizens through titles granted by the State.
The constitutional principle is that public status should not depend upon titles that place one citizen above another.
Article 18 contains four clauses dealing with:
- Abolition of titles by the State
- Restrictions on accepting titles from foreign States
- Restrictions on acceptance of foreign presents, emoluments or offices
- Restrictions applicable to persons holding offices of profit or trust under the State
Constitutional Text of Article 18
Article 18 provides:
- Article 18(1) prohibits the State from conferring titles, except military or academic distinctions.
- Article 18(2) prohibits citizens of India from accepting any title from a foreign State.
- Article 18(3) restricts persons holding offices of profit or trust under the State from accepting titles from foreign States without the consent of the President.
- Article 18(4) requires the President’s consent before certain persons holding offices of profit or trust under the State accept presents, emoluments or offices from or under a foreign State.
Each clause serves a different purpose.
Article 18(1) – Abolition of Titles
Article 18(1) provides that:
“No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.”
The provision prevents the State from conferring titles that create artificial distinctions of rank or social status.
The two express exceptions are:
- Military distinctions
- Academic distinctions
Therefore, the Constitution does not prohibit every form of recognition or distinction.
What Is a “Title”?
The Constitution does not provide a detailed definition of the word “title.”
In the context of Article 18, the concern is with titles that create or recognise a separate status or rank that places an individual in a position of distinction over other citizens.
The provision was influenced by the constitutional objective of creating a society based on equal civic status rather than inherited or State-created ranks.
Why Were Titles Abolished?
Before independence, titles were used by colonial authorities to recognise or reward individuals and could become markers of social prestige and official status.
The Constitution adopted a different approach.
The abolition of titles reflects the idea that:
All citizens are equal in constitutional status.
A person’s legal and civic position should not depend upon a title conferred by the State.
Article 18(1) and Military Distinctions
Article 18 expressly permits military distinctions.
Military honours and ranks serve a different purpose from titles that create social or hereditary status.
The constitutional provision therefore does not prevent the State from recognising military service and achievement.
Article 18(1) and Academic Distinctions
Academic distinctions are also expressly excluded from the prohibition.
Degrees and distinctions awarded by recognised educational institutions do not constitute prohibited titles merely because they appear after a person’s name.
For example, academic qualifications such as LL.B., LL.M., Ph.D. and other recognised educational distinctions are not prohibited titles under Article 18.
Article 18(2) – Foreign Titles
Article 18(2) provides that:
“No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.”
The restriction applies specifically to citizens of India.
A citizen cannot accept a title from a foreign government, regardless of whether the title has been granted for achievement, service or another reason.
The constitutional objective is to avoid foreign governments creating formal distinctions or allegiances involving Indian citizens.
Article 18(3) – Persons Holding Office Under the State
Article 18(3) deals with persons who are not citizens as well as citizens who hold certain offices.
It provides that no person who is not a citizen of India shall, while holding any office of profit or trust under the State, accept any title from any foreign State without the consent of the President.
The purpose is to prevent persons holding public positions from accepting foreign titles without constitutional approval.
Article 18(4) – Foreign Presents, Emoluments and Offices
Article 18(4) provides that no person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the consent of the President, accept:
- Any present
- Any emolument
- Any office
of any kind from or under any foreign State.
This provision is intended to protect the independence and integrity of public offices.
The requirement of Presidential consent acts as a constitutional safeguard against possible foreign influence.
Article 18(3) and Article 18(4)
These two clauses should not be confused.
| Article 18(3) | Article 18(4) |
|---|---|
| Concerns acceptance of titles from foreign States | Concerns presents, emoluments or offices from foreign States |
| Applies to persons who are not citizens while holding an office of profit or trust under the State | Applies to persons holding an office of profit or trust under the State |
| Requires President’s consent | Requires President’s consent |
Article 18 and National Awards
One of the most important questions concerning Article 18 is whether national awards such as the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards amount to unconstitutional titles.
The Supreme Court considered this issue in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India.
The Court held that national awards such as the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards do not amount to prohibited titles under Article 18, provided they are not used as titles or prefixes and suffixes to a person’s name.
The distinction is therefore between:
recognising exceptional service or achievement and creating a title that confers a distinct status or rank.
Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India
This is the leading case on Article 18 and national awards.
The Supreme Court examined whether awards such as:
- Bharat Ratna
- Padma Vibhushan
- Padma Bhushan
- Padma Shri
violated Article 18.
The Court held that these awards are not titles prohibited by Article 18.
However, the awards should not be used as titles or prefixes and suffixes to the recipient’s name.
The judgment is therefore essential for understanding the distinction between constitutional recognition through awards and prohibited titles.
National Awards and Article 18
National awards are intended to recognise exceptional contributions in areas such as:
- Public affairs
- Art
- Literature
- Science
- Social work
- Public service
- Other recognised fields of achievement
The constitutional concern arises if an award is transformed into a title that creates a permanent distinction of status.
The use of awards as prefixes or suffixes to names is therefore constitutionally problematic.
Are “Dr.” and “Advocate” Prohibited Titles?
Academic and professional designations do not automatically constitute prohibited titles under Article 18.
For example, academic qualifications such as Dr. when legitimately used to indicate a doctoral qualification are not equivalent to a State-conferred title prohibited by Article 18.
Similarly, professional designations may arise from professional qualifications or statutory recognition rather than from the conferral of a prohibited title.
The crucial question is the nature and source of the distinction, rather than simply whether a designation appears before or after a person’s name.
Article 18 and Equality
Article 18 supports the broader principle of equality by preventing the State from creating formal distinctions of status among citizens.
The relationship can be understood as:
Article 14 → General equality
Article 15 → Prohibition of specified discrimination
Article 16 → Equality in public employment
Article 17 → Abolition of untouchability
Article 18 → Abolition of titles
Together, these provisions establish important aspects of the constitutional commitment to equal citizenship.
Article 18 and Democracy
The abolition of titles reflects the democratic character of the Constitution.
A democratic constitutional system does not ordinarily recognise citizens as belonging to legally superior or inferior classes based on State-conferred social titles.
Article 18 therefore rejects formal distinctions of rank while still allowing legitimate academic and military recognition.
Important Case on Article 18
Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India
The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of national awards under Article 18.
The Court held that Bharat Ratna and Padma awards do not constitute prohibited titles.
However, they cannot be used as titles or prefixes and suffixes to the names of recipients.
This is the principal case students should remember for Article 18.
Important Features of Article 18
1. Abolishes State-Conferred Titles
The State cannot confer titles except military and academic distinctions.
2. Protects Equal Civic Status
The provision seeks to prevent artificial distinctions of social or constitutional status.
3. Restricts Acceptance of Foreign Titles
Indian citizens cannot accept titles from foreign States.
4. Requires Presidential Consent in Specified Cases
Persons holding offices of profit or trust under the State require Presidential consent for certain foreign titles, presents, emoluments or offices.
5. Permits Academic Distinctions
Academic distinctions are expressly excluded from the prohibition.
6. Permits Military Distinctions
Military distinctions are also expressly excluded.
7. Does Not Prohibit National Awards
National awards are not automatically prohibited titles, subject to the constitutional limitations explained by the Supreme Court.
Common Confusions
Confusion 1: Article 18 Prohibits All Awards
No.
Article 18 prohibits certain titles but does not prohibit all forms of awards or recognition.
The Supreme Court has held that national awards such as the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards are not prohibited titles.
Confusion 2: Bharat Ratna Is a Constitutional Title
No.
Bharat Ratna is a national award and not a constitutional title.
It cannot, however, be used as a title or prefix/suffix to the recipient’s name.
Confusion 3: Academic Degrees Are Prohibited Titles
No.
Article 18 expressly permits academic distinctions.
Confusion 4: Article 18 Applies Only to Indian Citizens
Not entirely.
Article 18 contains different rules for citizens and persons holding offices of profit or trust under the State.
For example, Article 18(3) specifically addresses persons who are not citizens of India.
Confusion 5: Article 18 Prohibits Military Ranks
No.
Military distinctions are expressly excluded from the prohibition under Article 18(1).
Confusion 6: A National Award Can Be Added Before a Person’s Name
No.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that national awards cannot be used as titles or prefixes and suffixes to the recipient’s name.
Article 18 and Article 14
Article 14 establishes the broad constitutional guarantee of equality.
Article 18 deals with a specific form of artificial distinction: State-conferred titles.
The two provisions therefore complement each other.
Article 14 establishes equality as a general constitutional principle, while Article 18 removes one particular mechanism through which unequal status could be formally created.
Article 18 and Article 17
Articles 17 and 18 deal with very different constitutional problems.
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and addresses caste-based social exclusion.
Article 18 abolishes titles and addresses State-created distinctions of status.
Both provisions, however, support the broader constitutional objective of equal citizenship.
Important Points to Remember
| Concept | What to Remember |
|---|---|
| Article | Article 18 |
| Right | Right to Equality |
| Article 18(1) | State cannot confer titles except military or academic distinctions |
| Article 18(2) | Citizens cannot accept titles from foreign States |
| Article 18(3) | Certain persons holding office under the State require Presidential consent to accept foreign titles |
| Article 18(4) | Presidential consent required for specified foreign presents, emoluments or offices |
| Permitted Distinctions | Military and academic distinctions |
| National Awards | Not prohibited titles, subject to constitutional limitations |
| Leading Case | Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India |
Quick Revision
- Article 18 deals with the abolition of titles.
- The State cannot confer titles except military or academic distinctions.
- Indian citizens cannot accept titles from foreign States.
- Persons holding offices of profit or trust under the State are subject to additional restrictions concerning foreign titles, presents, emoluments and offices.
- Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards are not prohibited titles.
- National awards cannot be used as prefixes or suffixes to a recipient’s name.
- Academic and military distinctions are expressly permitted.
- Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India is the leading case on Article 18.
- Article 18 is part of the Right to Equality.
Conclusion
Article 18 reinforces the constitutional idea that citizens should enjoy equal civic status without State-created titles that establish artificial distinctions of rank or social superiority.
The provision does not prevent the State from recognising achievement. Academic and military distinctions remain permissible, and the Supreme Court has also recognised the validity of national awards such as the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards, subject to their not being treated as titles.
For examination purposes, the central distinction is simple:
Article 18 → Abolition of titles → Military and academic distinctions permitted → National awards permitted as awards, not titles → Restrictions on foreign titles and benefits
