5. Abolition of Titles — Article 18

This is the 5th post in Constitutional Law-I, Unit 3 — Posts 1 to 4 covered Articles 14 to 17, all concerned with equality among citizens and the prohibition of specific forms of discrimination; this post covers Article 18, the last of the equality-related Articles in this Unit, which addresses a different concern entirely — preventing the creation of a titled aristocracy that would stand apart from and above ordinary citizens.

The Problem This Topic Solves

Before independence, the British Crown and various princely states conferred hereditary and honorary titles — such as "Rai Bahadur," "Khan Bahadur," "Diwan Bahadur," and knighthoods — on individuals, creating a recognisable titled class that enjoyed social prestige and standing distinct from, and often above, ordinary subjects. In a republic committed to equality, allowing the State to keep conferring such titles would preserve exactly the kind of artificial social hierarchy Articles 14 to 17 work to dismantle. A related but separate concern is that citizens accepting titles or favours from foreign states could create divided loyalty or improper foreign influence. Article 18 addresses both problems together.

Article 18 — Text and Structure

Clause (1) — no title, other than a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

Clause (2) — no citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.

Clause (3) — a person who is not a citizen of India, while holding any office of profit or trust under the State, shall not accept a title from any foreign State without the President's consent.

Clause (4) — no person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall, without the President's consent, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.

Clause (1) — Why Military and Academic Distinctions Are Exempted

The exception for military and academic distinctions exists because these are not the kind of hereditary, rank-conferring titles Article 18 targets — a Param Vir Chakra or an Ashoka Chakra recognises a specific act of valour, and an earned doctorate recognises a specific academic achievement; neither creates a permanent titled class or hereditary social rank passed down through a family. The distinction Article 18 draws is not between "government recognition" and "no recognition," but between recognition of a specific, individually-earned achievement and a title that confers ongoing social status detachable from any particular act.

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) — Are the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards "Titles"?

Clauses (2) to (4) — Foreign Titles, Presents, and Emoluments

Clauses (2) to (4) shift focus from titles conferred by the Indian State to titles and benefits received from foreign States, addressing the risk that citizens — and especially those holding public office — might develop divided loyalties or improper obligations toward a foreign power. Clause (2) is an absolute bar: no citizen of India may accept a foreign title at all, without any exception or route to permission. Clause (3) applies only to non-citizens holding an office of profit or trust under the Indian State, and is not absolute — such a person may accept a foreign title with the President's prior consent. Clause (4) is broader still in subject-matter (covering not just titles, but any present, emolument, or office from a foreign State) but applies to any person — citizen or not — holding an office of profit or trust under the State, again subject to the President's consent.

Article 18 — The Four Clauses at a Glance

• Article 18(1) prohibits the State from conferring any title except a military or academic distinction, aimed at preventing the recreation of a hereditary, titled aristocracy inconsistent with Republican equality
• Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996): a unanimous 5-judge bench held that the Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards are not "titles" under Article 18(1), but recipients cannot use them as a prefix or suffix to their name
• Clause (2) is an absolute bar on any citizen accepting a foreign title — unlike clauses (3) and (4), it allows no exception through the President's consent or otherwise
• Clause (3) (non-citizen officeholders accepting a foreign title) and clause (4) (any officeholder accepting any present/emolument/office from a foreign State) both permit the activity only with the President's prior consent

• The line Article 18 draws is between a title recognising a specific, individually-earned act or achievement (permitted) and a title conferring an ongoing, detachable social rank or status (prohibited) — this is why military/academic distinctions are exempted while hereditary titles are not
• Clause (2)'s prohibition on citizens accepting foreign titles applies regardless of whether the citizen holds any government office — it is not limited to public officeholders, unlike clauses (3) and (4)
• Article 18, unlike Articles 15-17, has no equivalent private-conduct dimension — its concern is entirely with what the State (Indian or foreign) confers and what public functionaries or citizens accept, not with private social practices

Coming Up in This Unit

Articles 14 to 18 together make up the "Right to Equality" — the general principle (Article 14), its specific application against discrimination (Article 15) and in public employment (Article 16), and two absolute prohibitions of particular practices (untouchability under Article 17, titles under Article 18). The next post moves to an entirely different category of Fundamental Rights — the "Right to Freedom" under Article 19, which guarantees six specific freedoms to citizens, each subject to its own reasonable restrictions.

A Practical Example

An Indian citizen working for an international organisation is offered an honorary title by a foreign government in recognition of their humanitarian work. Since Article 18(2) is an absolute bar on citizens accepting any foreign title, this citizen cannot accept it — no amount of Presidential consent can cure this, since clause (2), unlike clauses (3) and (4), provides no such route. Now suppose, instead, a foreign national who holds an advisory office of profit under the Indian Government is offered the same title by their home country — under clause (3), they may accept it, but only with the Indian President's prior consent.

Quick Revision Points

• Article 18(1): the State cannot confer any title except a military or academic distinction — aimed at preventing a hereditary titled class
• Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996): Bharat Ratna/Padma Awards are not "titles" under Article 18(1), but cannot be used as a prefix/suffix to the recipient's name
• Clause (2): absolute bar on any citizen accepting a foreign title, no exception
• Clause (3): non-citizen officeholders may accept a foreign title only with the President's consent
• Clause (4): any officeholder (citizen or not) may accept a present/emolument/office from a foreign State only with the President's consent