Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India

FACTS

Two petitions were filed by the petitioners in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Kerala. The petitions were filed separately in the high courts 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.

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case was whether the Awards, i.e., 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 Constitution of India.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• It was held by this Hon'ble court that the national awards like "Bharat Ratna: Padma Vibhushan etc” awarded by the Government of India, are not titles within the meaning of the Article 18(1). This court observed that these awards aren’t violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 18. It examined that:

“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 India. In this context, we may refer to the various clauses of Article 51A and specifically clause (i) 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, there-fore, necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to recognize excellence in the performance of these duties.”

• However, this court observed that awards conferred by the State shouldn’t be used as suffixes or prefixes. The Court has also suggested that the Prime Minister in consultation with the President should appoint a high level committee to lay down criteria for selection of persons for these awards. For instance, Justice Kudip Singh mentioned "Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and foolproof method of selection is bound to breed nepotism, favouritism, patronage and even corruption”.

{pg 1048 Indian Constitutional Law, by MP Jain 8th ed}

🏛️ Additional Landmark Judgments Cited

Article 14 - Right to Equality

• Air India v. Nargesh Meerza: Held that terminating the services of an air hostess on the grounds of pregnancy amounted to discrimination.

• Randhir Singh v. Union of India: Held that equal pay for equal work, though not a fundamental right, is a Constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16, 39(c) of the Constitution.

• DS Nakara v. Union of India: Stated that classification was made between the prisoners who retired before a specific date and those who retired after a certain date. Such a classification was irrational.

• Mithu v. State of Punjab: Held that Section 303, which provided for a mandatory death penalty for anyone who commits murder and is on life imprisonment, was declared arbitrary.

• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India: Held that Article 14 does not restrict “persons” to males and females only. Hijras/transgenders are also included here.

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: Held that LGBTQ people were legally allowed to engage in sexual intercourse. Section 377 was held to be violative of the right to equality to same sex couples.

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala: The Supreme Court declared the Sabrimala’s custom of prohibiting women from entering the temple during their menstruating years as unconstitutional.

Article 17 - Abolition of Untouchability

• Devrajjah v. Padmanna: Held that the word occurs only in Article 17 and is enclosed in inverted commas indicating that the subject matter of the Article is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but as a practice that has developed historically in the country.

• PUDR v. Union of India: Held that the fundamental right under Article 17 is available against private individuals too.