Bombay High Court says ‘Padma Shri’, ‘Bharat Ratna’ not titles, can’t be used as prefix, suffix

“Purely as an incidental point, taking cognisance of the manner in which one of the parties has been named in the title in these proceedings, it is the duty of this Court to draw attention to a five-judge Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court,” the court noted.

Top court ruling

The high court referred to a five-judge Constitution bench decision of the apex court which had held that civilian awards such as Padma Shri and Bharat Ratna are not titles and ought not to be used as prefix or suffix to names of the awardees.

The Supreme Court in Balaji Raghavan/SP Anand v. Union of India had answered whether the awards, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are “Titles” within the meaning of Article 18(1) (abolition of titles) of the Constitution.

“The National Awards do not amount to “titles” within the meaning of Article 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. If this is done, the defaulter should forfeit the National Award conferred on him or her by following the procedure laid down in Regulation 10 of each of the four notifications creating these National Awards,” the supreme court had held.

The high court emphasised the need for compliance with the law declared by the Supreme Court.

‘Ensure compliance’

The high court, as a result, directed the parties to ensure compliance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in the conduct of proceedings. The order further directed that courts too must ensure that this is complied with in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

The court was dealing with a petition challenging an order passed by joint charity commissioner Pune refusing to allow a correction to the meeting date of the trustees of a trust said to have been held on January 21, 2016, but depicted as January 20, 2016 in a report filed and approved.

While observing that the record indicated the meeting was purported to have been held on January 21, 2016, the court allowed the plea to reflect the amendment.

“The limited intervention being made at this stage is that since the record indicates that the meeting is purported to have been held on January 21, 2016, the amendment sought by the Petitioner to reflect this date deserves to be allowed,” the court held.