A

B

c

BALAJI RAGHAV AN

S.P. ANAND

v.

UNION OF INDIA

DECEMBER

15, 1995

[AM. AHMADI, CJ,

KULDIP SINGH, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,

N.P. SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 18(1) and 51-A(j)

Titles-Award of-Prohibition against-Exception-Only in respect of

military and academic distinctions-Position in other countries dis­

cussed-National Awards--Hereditaiy titles of nobility and their use of suf­

fixes or prefu:es--Prohibited-Bharat Ratna and Padma Awards-Do not

amount to titles and

are not to be used as

suffu:es or prefu:es--Such awards

D are not discriminatory but necessary to recognise excellence in peifor­

mance-17ie guidelines for selection of recepients--Amenable to abuse and

wholly unsatisfact01y-Number of Awards should be restricted-Formation of

high powered committees at the National and State levels suggested. J'ublic

Interest Litigation-Case transferred from High Coult-A public interest

litigant cannot choose his forum-Once a case is transferred to the Supreme

E Coult, he must appear before it--Litigants must confnnn to the time schedule

fu:ed by the Coult-Practice and Procedure.

F

Words and Phrases ·_.

Title-Meaning of in the context of Alticle 18(1) of the constitution of

India.

The two petitions which were filed in the High Court sought to

prevent the respondent fror.i conferring any of the National Awards. The

High Court restrained the respondent from so conferring. The respondent

filed petitions before this Court seeking to transfer the cases

and this

G Court transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself. The last date for

submission of written briefs

by both sides was fixed and each side was

allotted time for oral arguments.

One of the petitioners did not present

himself before the Constitution

Bench and no arguments were advanced

on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion of the hearing and the

H judgment being reserved, he sent communications requesting that his

694

BALAIIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1. 695

petition should be delisted or else he should be given a hearing by the A

Constitution Bench.

On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that Article

18(1) of the Constitution did not define, the words "titles" and "distinction";

that the word "till~' should be given the widest possible meaning and

amplitude; that since the only exception to this rule has been carved out B

in respect of military and academic distinctions, it follows that all other

/

distinctions were impliedly prohibited; and that the National Awards made

distinctions acto1.'ing to rank which was clearly violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution.

c

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that almost every

countri in the world followed the practice of conferring awards; that the

appel\;ltions which appeared .as prefixes or suffixes were sought to be

interdicted by Artide 18(1) of the Constitution; that since the National

Awards were not titles of Nobility

and were not to be used as

sullixes or

prefixes, they were not prohibited by Article 18 of the Constitution; and D

that guidelines for selection of probable recepients were extremely wide,

imprecise .and amenable to abuse.

Disposing of the petitions, this Court,

HELD :

By the court : 1. It is clear that in enancting Article 18(1),

E

the framers of the Constitution sought to put an end to the practice

followed

by the British in respect of conferment of titles. They, therefore,

prohibited titles of nobility

and all other titles that carry suffixes or

prefixes as they result in the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens.

However, the framers did not intend

that the

State should not officially F

recognise merit or work of an extraordinary nature. They, however, man­

dated. that the honours conferred by the State should not be used as

sullixes or prefixes i.e., as titles, by the recepients. (713-D-E]

2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around the

world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose Con- G

stitutions specifically bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the

practice of regularly conferring civil awards. (713-F]

3. The National Awards are not violative of the principles

of equality

as guaranteed

by the provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality H

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A does not mandate that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the

Constitution speaks

of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. It

is

necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to

recognise excellence in the performance of these duties. [714-C]

B

4. 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. Bharat

Ratna and

Padma awards are not "titles' within the meaning of Article 18

of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens for

exceptional

and distinguished services rendered in the field of art,

litera­

ture, science and other fields. These awards are national in character and

C only those who have achieved distinction at national level can be con·

sidered for these awards. [715-A. 713-G]

5. The guidelines for selection of probable recepients are extremely

wide, imprecise, amenable

to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory for the

important objective that they seek to achieve. The existing procedure for

D selection of candidates is wholly vague and is open to abuse at the whims

and fancies of the persons in authority. Conferment of

Padma awards

without

any firm guidelines and fool-proof method of selection is bound to

breed nepotism, favouritism,

patronage and even corruption. [715-C]

E

F

G

6. The fixing of criteria, which will ensure that the recepients of these

awards

are subjected to feelings of respect rather than suspicion, need to

be examined by a high level Committee that may be

appc!nted by the Prime

Minister in consultation with the President of India. The Committee may

keep

in view that the number of Awards should not be so large as to dilute

their value. The number of awards under each category must be curtailed

to preserve their prestige and dignity. In any given year the awards, all put

together, may not exceed fifty. [715-E-F]

(Per Ahmadi, CJ. for himself and Jeevan Reddy, N.P. Singh and S.

Saghir Ahmad, JJ)

1.1. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum. Once the case

stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements to

present himself and advance arguments before it. A Constitution Bench

cannot be expected to fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each

and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule fixed by

H the Court. [701-F]

BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.O.I. 697

1.2. Tuo views on the proper interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge: A

(1) The first is that the word 'title' in Article 18(1) is nsed in an

expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, orders, decorations or

titles of any sort whatsoever, except those that qualify as military or

academic distinctions.

[707-A)

(2) The second is that what is sought to be prohibited are titles of

nobility and those that carry suffixes or prefixes, which violate the concept

of equality

by creating a separate class. According to this view, the words

"military or academic distinction" were added by way of abundant caution.

B

It was not meant to prevent the State from honouring or recognizing C

meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens. [707-B]

2.1. It is clear that in enacting Article 18(1), the framers of the

Constitution sought

to put an end to the practice followed by the British

in respect of conferment of titles.

They, therefore, prohibited titles of

nobility and all other titles that carry suffixes or prefixes as they result in

D

the creation of a distinct unequal class of citizens. However, the framers

did not intend that

State should not officially recognise merit or work of

an extraordinary nature.

They, however, mandated that the honours

con­

ferred by the State should not be used as suffixes or prefixes i.e., as titles,

by the recepients. [713-D-E) E

2.2. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around

the world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose

Constitutions specifically

bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the

practice

of regularly conferring civil awards. While other Constitutions

also prohibit the conferment of titles of nobility, ours may perhaps

be F

unique in requiring that awards conferred by the

State are not to be used

as suffixes

or prefixes. In France, the

Palmes Academiques is awarded for

merit in teaching· and for literature, science and other cultural activities.

The Canadian Government established the Order of Canada in 1967 and

it is awarded for a wide variety of fields including agriculture, ballet, G

medicine, philanthropy, etc. [713-F-G]

2.3. The National Awards do not amount to "titles" within the mean-

ing of Article 18(1)

and they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes, and

are not violative of the principles of equality as guaranteed

by the

provisions of the Constitution. The theory of equality does not mandate

H

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A that merit should not be recognized. Article 51A of the Constitution speaks

of the fundamental duties of every citizen of India. In this context

Ar

Ude

51A clause (j) 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 therefore,

B

necessary that there should be a system of awards and decorations to

recognise excellence in the performance of these duties.

[715-A,

714-C]

Co11stitutio11 Assembly Debates Vol. III and VII; 77ie Framing of

India's Constitution by B. Shiva Rao, Danzing Co11stitutio11, The Constitution

of United States of Ameiica, 1787; The Co11stitutio11 of Japa11, 17ie Constitu­

C tion of the Republic of Ireland, 1937; The Constitution of Philippin11es, 1935;

The Constitution of Iceland, 1944 and 1he Weimar Constitution, 1919,

referred to.

3.1. The guidelines for selection

of probable recepients are extremely

wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse aud wholly unsatisfactory for the

D important objective that

they seek to achieve. There are no limitations

prescribed for the maximum number of awards that can be granted in a

given year or· the maximum number that is permissible in each category.

Most countries have provided for such limitations in respect of their

civil

awards. That is for the obvious reason that the importance of the awards

E is not dilnted. [715-C-D]

3.2. The fixing of criteria, which will ensure that the recepients of

these awards are subjected

to feelings of respect rather than suspicion,

need to

be examined by a high level

Committee that may be appointed by

the Prime Minister in consnltation with the President of India. The Com-

F mittee may keep in view that the number of Awards should not be so large

as to dilute their value. [715-E-F]

(Per Ku/dip Singh, J.-concuning)

1.1. Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not "titles" within Article

G 18 of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens

for exceptional and distinguished services rendered in art, literatnre,

science and other fields. These awards are national in character

and only

those

who have achieved distinction at national

level can be considered for

these awards. The existing procedure for selection

of candidates is wholly

H vague and is open to abuse at the whims and fancies of the persons in

BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1. 699

authority. Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and A

fool-proof method of selection is bound to breed nepotism, favouritism,

patronage

and even corruption.

[716-A-B, DJ

1.2. There has been no application of mind at all by the successive

Governments

and the system of giving

Padma awards is getting

degenerated with the passage of time. It has already reached a point where B

political or narrow group interests are being rewarded by those in office

for the time being.

[717

-Fl

Parliamentary Debates, November 27, 1970, referred to.

2.1. To ensure that Padma awards are truely national in character

and above party and political considerations, it is suggested that a com­

mittee at national level be constituted by the Prime Minister of India in

consultation with the President of India.which may include, among other,

the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India

or his nominee and

c

the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. At the

State level similar D

committees may be framed by the Chief Minister of the State in consult­

ation with the Governor. The Committee may, among others, include

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Chief Justice of the State or his

nominee

and the leader of the Opposition.

[718-C-D]

2.2. The function of the State committees may only be to recommend E

the names of the persons, who in their opinion deserve a particular award.

The final decision shall have to be taken by the National Committee on

Awards.

No award should be conferred except on the recommendation of

the National Committee. The recommendation

must

have.the approval of

the Prime Minister and the President of India. The number of awards F

under each category must be curtailed to preserve their prestige and

dignity. In any given year the awards, all put together, may not exceed fifty.

[718-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Transferred Case (C) No.

9of1994. G

With

Transferred Case

(C) No. 1 of 1995. (Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution of India.) H

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A M.K. Banerjee, Attorney General of India, N. Santosh Hegde, Tony

B

c

George, Romy Chacko, N. Sudhakaran, P. Parmeswaran and Bijan Ghosh

for the appearing parties.

The Judgments of the Court were delivered by

AHMADI,

CJI : 1. The short but interesting question that arises for

our consideration is :

"Whether the Awards, 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

?"

2. Before dealing with the legal aspects of the question at issue, we

may briefly set out the factual matrix

of the two cases. The two petitions

which have given rise to this issue were filed in the High Courts

of Kerala

D and Madhya

Pradesh (Indore Bench), respectively. The petitioner in

T.C.(C) No. 9/94, Balaji Raghavan (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 1') ·

had filed O.P. No. 2110/92 (hereinafter called 'the O.P.') on February 13,

1992 before the Kerala High Court.

The petition filed 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. The petitioner in

E T.C.(C) No.

1195, S.P. Anand (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 2') filed

Misc. petition No. 1900/92 (hereinafter called 'the M.P.') on August 24,

1992, before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, praying

for

the same relief.

p 3. In the Kerala High Court, the two contesting parties filed written

submissions and counters between September

30, 1992 and April 7, 1994.

During this period, the High Court of Kerala did not bear oral arguments

or pass any interim order. However, in the other case, a Division Bench of

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), on August 25,

1992,

through an ex-parte order, issued notice to the respondent and also

G restrained it from conferring on any person or persons any of the National

Awards, until further orders. The respondent filed T.P. (C) Nos. 6 & 7

before this Court, seeking to transfer the case

and to vacate the ex-parte

order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated August 25, 1992.

On

January 8, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court, while refusing to transfer

H the case to itself, directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to give its

l

'

BALAJI RAGHA VAN S.P. ANAND v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, CJ.] 701

decision on the application filed by the respondent for vacating the ex-A

parte order, on or before January 20, 1993. On January 20, 1993, a Division

Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vacated its earlier order dated

August

25, 1992. Meanwhile, the respondent filed

T.P.(C) No. 811-812/93,

by which it sought transfer of both the O.P. and the M.P. to this Court. On

October 29, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter B

be posted before a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India on

January

17, 1994.

On that day, a bench of this Court presided over by the

then Chief Justice issued notice in T.P. Nos. 811-812/93 and stayed further

proceedings in both the petitions. Later, on March

7, 1994, this Court

transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself.

4. Thereafter, on September

11, 1995, T.C.(C) Nos. 9/94 and 1/95

were posted before a Division Bench of this Court. The last date for

submission of written briefs

by both sides was fixed and each side was

allotted time for oral arguments. While counsel for the petitioner No. 1

c

and the respondent submitted their written briefs within the stipulated D

time, the petitioner No. 2, however, failed to do so. The date for the hearing

before this Constitution Bench

was fixed for November 14, 1995.

On

October 31, 1995, the petitioner No. 2 was given notice of this fact.

However, he did not present himself before the Constitution Bench and no

arguments were advanced on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion

of the hearing and the judgment being reserved, he sent communications E

dated November

1, 1995 and November 6, 1995, which were received by

the Supreme Court on November 15, 1995 and November 21, 1995 respec­

tively, requesting that his petition should be delisted or else he should be

given a hearing

by the Constitution Bench. It is not possible to accede to

his request. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum.

Once the F

case stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements

to present himself and advance arguments before

it. A Constitution Bench

cannot be expected to

fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each

and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule

fixed by the

Court. Hence

we have refused to entertain his request.

It would now be relevant to notice the events connected with the

institution of

the National Awards. It is important to note that a policy of

instituting National Awards and Honours had been adopted even before

G

the Constitution of India was formally drafted.

On February 13, 1948, the

Prime Minister's Committee on Honours and Awards was set up under the H

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Chairmanship of the Constitutional Adviser to the Government of India,

Sir

B.N. Rau. It's purpose was to recommend the number and nature of

civil and military awards; the machinery for making recommendations for

the granting of these awards; the frequency with which they were to be

awarded, etc. The Committee worked on the premise that orders and

B

c

decorations, carrying no title, were not meant to be prohibited. It submitted

its report on March

9,

1941! and gave extensive suggestions in respect of

each of the subjects upon which

it had been required to give its recom­

mendations. Thereafter,

in a series of meetings held between May

30, 1941!

and October 29, 1953, the Cabinet had occasion to discuss the nature and

conditions of the proposed National Awards.

6. The National Awards were formally instituted in January, 1954 by

two Presidential Notifications No.

l-Pres./54 and No. 2-Pres./54 dated

January

2, 1954 which were subsequently superseded by four fresh Notifica­

tions,

viz. No.

l-Pres./55, 2-Pres./55, 3-Pres./55 and 4-Pres./55 dated

D January 8, 1955. The purpose for which these awards were to be given are

as follows :

E

F

NAME

OF THE

AWARD

Bharat Ratna

PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN

For exceptional Service towards the advancement of

art, literature

& sicence & in recognition of public

service of the highest order.

Padma Vibhushan For exceptional and distinguished service in any field.

including service rendered by Govt. servants.

Padma Bhushan

Padma Shri

For distinguished service of a high order in any field

including the service rendered by Govt. servants.

For distinguished service in any field including

service rendered

by Govt. servants.

The aforementioned

Presidential Notifications also provide that any

G person, without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex, shall be

eligible for

t11ese awards and also that the decorations may be awarded

posthumously.

7. A

press Note was issued by the Government of India on April 17,

H 1968 making it clear that the practice of using Civilian Awards, such as,

'

BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMADl,CJ.j 703

Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, as titles on letter- A

heads, invitation cards, posters, books, etc., is against the scheme of the

Government as the awards are not titles and their use along with the names

of individuals

is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which has

abolished titles.

It was also emphasised in the press note that civilian

awards should not be attached

as suffixes or prefixes to the names of the B

awardes to give them the appearance of titles.

8. In the year 1969 and again in the year

1970, the late Acharya J.B.

Kripalani,

who was then a Member of the Lok

Sabha, moved a non-official

Bill entitled 'The Conferment of Decoration on_ Persons (Abolition) Bill,

1969' for their abolition. In the draft statement of Objects and Reasons C

appended to the Bill, the main points were thus stated :

(a) Although Article

18 had abolished titles, they were sought to be

brought

in by the back door in the form of decorations.

(b) The decorations were not

always awarded according to merit, D

and the Government of the day is not the best Judge or the merits or the

eminence of the recipient.

(c) These

"new titles'' were at first given to very few, exceptional

persons; this small stream had since become quite a flood.

The

Bill led to an elaborate debate in Parliament but was ultimately

defeated.

9.

On August 8, 1977, the institution of the National Awards was

cancelled, vide Notification No. 65-Pres./77. On .January 25, 1980 the

Government revived these awards

by Notification No. 25/Pres./80 which

cancelled the earlier Notification

No. 65-Pres./77 dated August 8, 1977.

Since then, the National Awards have been conferred annually on the

Republic

Day.

E

F

10. We may now refer to the text of Article 18 of the Constitution G

which reads as follows :

"18. Abolition of titles. -(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. H

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A (3) No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any

B

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 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."

ll. The learned counsel for petitioner No. 1 pointed out that while

Article 18(1) prohibits the conferment of 'titles'

by the

State with the

exception of military and academic distinctions,

it does not define the

C words

"titles" and "distinction". In an effort to throw light upon this aspect,

he referred us to the legislative history of the provision. According to him,

the framers of the Constitution had intended to do away with the practice

followed

by

the British of conferring various 'titles' upon Indian citizens

who curried favour with them. This practice and recipients of the titles had

D earned the contempt of the people of pre-independent India and hence

such pernicious practices were proposed to be prohibited

in Independent

India through

1 his provision. According to hin1, vie\vcd against this back­

ground, word 'title' should be given the widest possible meaning and

amplitude in order to

give effect to the legislative intent.

Since the only

E

F

exception to this rule has been carved out in respect of military and

academic distinctions,

it follows that all other distinctions are impliedly

prohibited.

We were then referred to several dictionaries to ascertain the

meaning of the words

11

Title, "Order",

1

'Distinction

11

,

1'Award

11

and "Designa-

tion". It was sought to be demonstrated that even the dictionary meaning

of

t.he word 'title' is wide enough to encompass all other similar concepts.

12. It was further contended that the National Awards make distinc­

tions according to rank. They are divided into superior and inferior classes

and the holders of Bharat Ratna

have been assigned the 9th place in the

Warrant of Precedence (which indicates the rank of different dignitaries

G and high officials of the State). It was pointed out that several recipients

were following the practice of appending these

awards to their names,

using them

as titles in their letter-heads, publications

am! at public func­

tions. This practice has continued unabated despite the fact that the

Govermnent had issued a Press Note in 1968 prohibiting such conduct.

Says the learned counsel, all these factors have resulted in the creation of

H a rank of persons on the basis of recognition

by the State, in the same

BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.O.l.[AHMADl,CJ.] 705

manner as was achieved by the conferment of nobility during the British A

rule. This, according to him, is clearly violative of Article 14 read with the

Preamble to the Constitution which guarantee to every citizen, equality of

status.

It was also pointed out that there are no objective guidelines for the

manner in which the recipients are to be chosen and over the years, these

awards have degenerated into rewards proffered by the powers that be i.e.,

B

the Government of the day, in great numbers, to those who serve their

political ends.

13. The learned Attorney General for India prefaced his arguments

on behalf of the Union of India by stating that almost every country in the

world, including those with republican and socialist constitutions, follows

C

the practice of conferring awards for meritorious services rendered by its

citizens. The learned counsel then referred

us to several dictionaries for

the meanings of

11

T;tle", "Award

11

,

11

Distinction", "Decoration

11

and

11

0rder

11

•

He then staled that, according to the ordinary and contextual meaning in

Article

18, the word

"title" means a title of honour, rank, function or office D

in which there is a distinctive appellation. An appellation, according to him,

is a name or title by which a person is called or known, something which

is normally prefixed or suffixed, for example, Sir, KC.LE., Maharaja,

Nawab, Dewan Bahadur, etc. The learned counsel submitted that it

is these

appellations that appear

as prefixes or suffJXes which are sought to be

interdicted

by Article 18(1). Since the National Awards are not titles of E

nobility and are not to be used as suffixes or prefixes, they are not

prohibited

by Article 18. In this regard, we were referred to the

Press Note

dated April

17, 1968 issued by the Government of India. The learned

counsel further submitted that the words

"not being a military or academic

distinction' in Article

18 have been used ex abundanti caute/a. Since F

military and academic distinctions, such

as, General, Colonel, Professor,

Mahavir Chakra, B.A., etc. do carry

suffJXes or preflXes, the framers of the

Constitution, by

way of abundant caution, expressly mentioned that they

would be exempted.

It follows that distinctions which do not carry

suffJXes

or prefixes or will not be affected by the interdiction in Article 18( 1). At

this stage, the learned counsel took us through the relevant parts of the G

discussions in the Constituent Assembly that led to the framing of Article

18(1) to support the aforesaid stance.

14. The learned Attorney General then reiterated his argument that

republican nations across the world have similar award for recognizing

H

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A meritorious services and these National Awards are not violative of the

right

to equality as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. In this context,

we were referred to civil awards instituted and conferred by the

United

Kingdom, the United States of America, the Republic of France, the

Peoples Republic of China, the Republic of Canada and the former Soviet

B

Union. In response to our query for guidelines that control the manner of

selection of the recipients of these awards, the learned Attorney General

delivered to

us a copy of the communique that was sent to him from the

Ministry of Home Affairs in this regard.

15. Mr. Santosh Hegde, Senior counsel, responded to our request to

C act as amicus curiae and advanced arguments before us. He began by

stating that the fact that these awards are being grossly misused had

occasioned one of the writ petitions. He referred

us to the views of eminent

authors, Mr. D.D. Basu and Mr. H.M. Seervai

on the issue at hand.

Thereafter,· he led

us through the relevant parts of the discussions in the

Constituent Assembly before submitting that

it is clear that the Constitu-

D tion does envisage a situation where meritorious services rendered by

individuals are

to be recognised by the

State, through the conferment of

awards. However, to avoid the criticism of creating of separate class, it

needs to be ensured that these awards are not used as prefJXes or suffixes.

He concurred

with the submission of the learned Attorney General that

E the words

"military or academic distinction" had been used by way of

abundant caution. Commenting on the misuse of these awards, he sub­

mitted that the maximum number of awards that can be conferred should

be specified.

He also felt that ordinarily, public servants and civil servants

should not be eligible for these awards, unless there are extraordinary

F

reasons.

16. We may now address the central issue in the case. At the outset,

we may point out that the marginal heading of Article 18, which reads as

!!Abolition of

Tit1es" is an incorrect summarization of its contents as it does

not seek to abolish titles granted in the past. Sir Ivor Jennings, the noted

G constitutional lawyer, has described Article 18 as "not a right at all, but a

restriction on executive legislative power."

17. from the aforementioned discussion, two views on the proper

interpretation of Article 18(1) emerge :

H (1) The first, put forth by the petitioners, is that the word 'title' in

BALAJI RAG HA VAN S.P. ANAND v. U.0.1. [AHMADI, CJ. J 707

Article 18(1) is used in an expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, A

orders, decorations or titles of any sort whatsoever, except those that

qualify

as military or academic distinctions.

(2) The second, advanced by the learned Attorney General and Mr.

Santosh Hegde,

is that what is sought to be prohibited are titles of nobility B

and those that carry suffJXes or

prefJXes, which violate the concept of

equality by creating a separate class. According to this

view, the words "military or academic distinction" were added by way of abundant caution.

It

was not meant to prevent the State from honouring or recognizing

meritorious or humanitarian services rendered by citizens.

18. We may now refer to the developments preceding the introduc­

tion of

Article 18(1) as it presently stands and the debates thereon amongst

the framers of G,_ Constitution. The Constituent Assembly, as we all know,

functioned

by constituting Committees which were expected to deliberate

c

and take decisions on specific issues of Constitutional law to be incor-D

porated in the Constitution.

On January 21, 1947, three such Committees

were constituted by the Assembly, one of them being the Advisory Com­

mittee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribals and Excluded Areas

(hereinafter called "The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights").

Thereafter, the Assembly met at regular intervals to discuss the reports

submitted

by the various Committees.

On August 29, 1947, the Assembly E

appointed a Drafting Committee which was to analyse the reports of these

Committees, take note of the discussions in the Assembly regarding them,

and prepare the text of a Draft Constitution. This Draft Constitution came

to be prepared during February

1948 and on November 15, 1948, the

clause-by-clause discussion of the Draft Constitution began in the Assemb-

F

ly. This process culminated on November 26, 1949 when the Constitution

as settled

by the Constituent Assembly was adopted by it.

19. The provision that is now Article 18(1) was discussed and formu­

lated in the report of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights. This

Committee had, in view of its wide agenda, appointed

two Sub-Commit-G

tees, one on Fundamental Rights and the other on Minorities. The former

Sub-Committee

was chaired by Acharya J.B. Kripalani.

On March 25, 1947,

the present Article 18(1) was discussed for the first time in the Sub-Com­

mittee

on Fundamental Rights. The agenda for the meeting was the dis­

cussion of the note prepared

by Mr. K.T.

Shah on Fundamental Rights H

708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A which contained five clauses relating to the prohibition of, and restrictions

on, the conferment and acceptance of titles, honours, distinctions and

privileges. Clause 3 of this note read :

B

c

"No artificial or man-made distinction between citizen and citizens,

by

way of titles, honours, privileges -whether personal or in­

heritable, -shall

be recognised by and enforceable under this

constitution, or laws made thereunder : provided that academic

degrees, official titles, or popular honorifics, whether of Indian or

foreign origin, or conferment,

may be permitted in so far as they

·

create no privileged class or heritable distinction."

At the meeting, Mr. K.T. Shah formally proposed the abolition of

titles and the privileged class of title holders.

In the final report of the

Sub-Committee, the relevant part of Clause 8 read

as follows :

"No titles except those denoting an office or a profession shall be

D conferred by the

Union."

20. This clause was considered by the Advisory Committee on Fun­

damental Rights on April

21, 1947. A number of influential members

expressed reservations about the abolition of titles. Mr.

C. Rajagopalachari

E suggested that it should be left open to the legislature to deddt from time

to time whether titles are good or bad. He stated that, especially if there

was

as nationalist, communist or socialist policy, and the profit motive was

removed, there would be a great necessity for creating a new motive in the

form of titles.

Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar and Mr. M. Ruthnaswamy

also supported the omission of this clause. The latter stated that equality

F is not opposed to distinction and even in a democracy, it must be provided.

G

H

Mr. K.T. Shah, however, urged that the conferring of titles offended against

the fundamental principle of equality sought to be enshrined in the Con­

stitution. Mr.

K.M. Panikkar, while suggesting half-way solution stated :

"Order and decorations are not prohibited. The heritable titles by

the Union undoubtedly create inequality. In the Soviet Union many

encouragements are given on account of certain national policies.

What I am submitti11g is that we must make a clear disti11ction

between titles which are heritable a11d thereby create inequality and

titles give11 by govemments for the pupose of rewarding merit or by

recognising merit. There are two methods that exist. As you know

BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMAD!,0.J 709

one is by title and the other by decoration. What we have to aim A

at ;s really the question of heritable titles and we should see that

provision is made for decorations and various other things because

it is only titles that have been prohibited, not decorations and

honours.

11

(Emphasis added) B

Pressed to a vote, the suggestion that the clause should be omitted was lost

by 14 votes to 10; but Mr. Panikkar's proposal that only heritable titles

should

be forbidden

was accepted by Mr. Shah and was unanimously

adopted by the Committee. The relevant part of clause 7 of the C

Committee's Interim Report to the Constituent Assembly read :

"No heritable title shall be conferred by the Union."

21. On April 30, 1947, this clause was discussed in the Constituent

Assembly. While

moving the clause, Mr. Vallabhbhai

Patel observed that D

titles were often being abused for corrupting the public life of the country

and, therefore, it

was better that their abolition should be provided as a

fundamental right. He informed the Assembly that it had been decided to

drop the word 'heritable'

as it had become a matter of controversy. While

moving the amendment, Mr. M.R. Masani stated :

"This will mean that the free Indian State will not confer any titles

of any kind, whether heritable or otherwise, that

is, for the life of

the incumbent.

It may be possible for the

Union to honour some

of its citizens who distinguish themselves

in several walks of life

E

like science and the arts, with other kinds of honours not amount-F

ing to titles;

but the idea of a man putting something before or after

his name

as a reward for service rendered will not be possible in a

free

India."

(Emphasis added)

While supporting the amendment, Sri Prakasa stated :

"Sir, I should like to make it plain that this clause does not prohibit

even the State from bestowing a proper honour. We are distin­

guishing between titles and honours.

A title is something that hangs

to one's name. I

wider.itand it is a British innovation. Other States H

A

B

710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

also honour their citizens for good work but those citizens do not

necessarily

/Jang their titles to their names as people in Britain or

British-govemed parts

of the world do. That is all that this clause

seeks

to do ............ we want to abolish this co"oding,

co~pting

practice which makes individuals go about currying favour with

authority to get particular distinctions."

(Emphasis added)

While opposing

the amendment, Seth Govind Das and Mr. H.V. Karnath

complained that the clause covered

only the future conferment of titles and

C that it was necessary also to abolish titles conferred earlier by the "alien

imperialist Government". Mr. Vallabhbhai

Patel in replying to the debate

referred to the point raised

by

selh Govind Das and Mr. Karnath. Pleading

for forgetting "all about past titles", he said that the Assembly was really

legislating for the future and not

for the past; some people who had

obtained titles from the British Government after they had "spent so

much"

D and "worked so hard" for them, should be left alone; disturbing their titles

might be "interpreted

as a sign of spiteful

feeling".

After the acceptance of the amendment moved by Mr. M.R. Masani the

relevant part of the clause read

as follows :

E

"No title shall be conferred by the Union."

F

G

22. With a minor modification, the provision appeared as Article

12(1) in the Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee :

"Article 12(1) -No title shall be conferred by the State."

23. The Drafting Committee and its Special Committee, after con­

sidering the various comments, suggestions and amendments received

on

draft article 12, suggested further amendments. The Constitutional Ad­

visor, Sir B.N. Rau, supported these new amendments and stated :

"Presumably it is not intended that titles such as "Field Marshal",

11

Admiral", "Air Marshal

11

,

11

Chief Justice" or "Doctor" indicating an

office or profession, should be discontinued. It may be pointed out

that the term "State" as defined includes "all local or other

authorities within the territory of India". Nor, presumably, is it

H intended to prohibit the award of medals or decorations for gal-

BALAIIRAGHAVAN S.P.ANANDv. U.O.l. [AHMADI, CJ.] 711

lantry, humanitarian work, etc. not carrying any title."

The Draft;ng Committee redrafted Article 12(1) to read :

"Hereditary titles or other privileges of birth shall not be conferred

by the State."

24. It is important to note that when, on November 30, 1948, draft

article

12 came up for final discussion before the Constituent Assembly,

Dr. Ambedkar did not

move the amendment for redrafting clause ( 1) of

Draft Article

12 which has earlier been accepted by the Drafting Commit­

tee.

The Draft article,

as presented to the Assembly, read as it was framed

originally

by the Drafting Committee :

"(1) No title shall be conferred by the State."

Mr. •T.T. Krishnamachari sought to add the words "not being a

A

B

c

D

military or academic distinction" after the word title in clause (1). He felt

that this

was necessary, firstly, because certain types of titles had to be

permitted, the Government having, for example, already decided to confer

certain military distinctions; secondly, because the State might decide to

revive academic titles like Mahamahopadhyaya, and lastly, because a E

university might not be completely divorced from a state in

view of the

definition of the latter in draft article

7. (Article 12 of the Constitution).

25. The amendment moved by Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari was ac­

cepted

by the Constituent Assembly on December 1, 1948 and the final F

clause [later renumbered by the Drafting Committee as Article 18(1)] read

as it does today.

Note : The quotations that appear in the preceding paragraphs have

been extracted from Volumes III and VII of the Constituent Assembly

Debates and from

"The Framing of India's Constitution", a study in five G

volumes, edited by B. Shiva Rao.

26. We may also refer to the views expressed by Sir B.N. Rau. As

already stated, he

was appointed the Chairman of the Prime Minister's

Committee on Awards and Honours which was appointed

as early as in H

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 1948. At the very first meeting of the Committee, one of the members

raised the issue of the validity of the proposed awards,

in view of article

12

of the Draft Constitution which sought to abolish titles.

Sir B.N. Rau,

who had, in his capacity as Member of the Drafting Committee contributed

to the discussion regarding Draft Article 12, pointed out that 'titles' did

B not necessarily include all orders and distinctions. He referred to the

U.S.

Constitution which forbids the grant of the titles of nobility but allows

decorations such as the Congressional

Medal of Honour and the Distin­

guished Service Cross.

He stated that in Constitutions where orders and

decorations as well as titles are intended to

be prohibited, separate men-

C tion is usually made, as had been done in Article 73 and Article

109 of the

Danzing and Weimar Constitutions respectively.

27. We may now refer to the constitutional provisions of certain other

countries analogous to Article 18(1) of our Constitution :

D 1. Article 73 of the Danzing Constitution (as it then was) read :

E

F

G

''Titles -with the exception of academic degrees -shall not be awarded

except when they denote an office or a profession.

Orders and Decorations may not be awarded by the free State.

No national of Danzig may accept titles or orders."

2. The Constitution of TJze United States of America, 1787.

Article 1, Section 9 Clause (8): "No title of nobility shall be granted

by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit

or trust under them shall, without consent

of the Congress, accept

any present, emolument, office, or title

of any kind whatever from

any King,

Prince, or foreign State.

11

3. T7ze Constitution of Japan.

Article XIV : "Peers and Peerage shall not be recognised. No

privilege shall accompany any award of honour, decoration or any

distinction,

nor shall any such award be valid beyond the life time

H of the individual who holds or hereafter may receive

it."

BALAJIRAGHAVAN S.P.ANANDv. U.0.I. [AHMADI, CJ.] 713

4. The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, 1937

Section 40(2) : "1. Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the

State.

2. No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen

A

except with the prior approval of the Government." B

Similar provisions are to be found in :

(i) Article

3,

Section 1, Sub-section (9) of the Constitution of Philip­

pines, 1935;

(ii) Article

78 of the Constitution of Iceland, 1944; and

(iii) Article

109 of the Weimar Constitution, 1919.

c

28. From the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, it is clear that

;., enacting Article 18(1), the framers of the Constitution sought to put an D

end to the practice followed by the British in respect of conferment of

titles. They, therefore, prohibited titles of nobility and all other titles that

carry suffixes or prefixes as they result in the creation of a distinct unequal

class of citizens. However, the framers did not intend that the State should

not officially recognise merit or work of

an extraordinary nature. They, E

however, mandated that the honours conferred by the

State should not be

used as suffixes or prefixes, i.e. as titles, by the recipients.

29. Awards of this nature are conferred by many countries around

F

the world. Even countries such as the United States of America, whose

Constitutions specifically

bar the conferment of titles of nobility, follow the

practice of regularly conferring

civil awards. In the

United States, the

Presidential Medal of Freedom, instituted in 1957, honours Americans and

others who make exceptional contributions to national security or interest,

world peace, culture and so forth.

In France, the

Pa/mes Academiques is

awarded for merit in teaching and for literature, science and other cultural

G

activities. There are also other awards for social merit, public health,

tourism, craftsmanship, postal merit, etc. The Canadian Government es­

tablished the

Order of Canada in 1967 and it is awarded for a wide variety

of fields including agriculture, ballet, medicine, philanthropy, etc. The

Order of Canada has three

levels of membership -Companion, Officer and

Member.

The total number of living companions may not at any time H

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A exceed 150. No more than 15 Companions, 46 Officers and 92 Members

may be appointed in

any given year. The Order of Merit which is said to

be the inspiration behind the National Awards,

was instituted in

1902, and

is awarded for outstanding service by British Scientists, writers, or other

distinguished civilians.

It is limited to 24 members. It does not carry any

title or rank.

B 30. The National Awards are not violative of the principles of

equality

as

gnaranteed by the provisions of the Constitution. 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

C India. In this context, we may refer to the various clauses of Article 51A

and specifically

Gl 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,

therefore, necessary that there should be a system of awards and decora­

tions to recognise excellence in the performance of these duties.

D

31. Hereditary titles of nobility conflict with the principle of equality

insofar

as they create a separate, identifiable class of people who are

distinct from the rest of society and have access to special privileges. Titles

that are not hereditary but carry

suff1Xes or prefixes have the same effect,

E though, the degree may be lesser. While other Constitutions also prohibit

the conferment of titles of nobility, ours may perhaps be unique

in requir­

ing that awards conferred

by the

State are not to be used as suff=s or

prefixes. This difference

is borne out of the peculiar problems that these

titles had created in pre-independent India and the earnest desire of the

framers to prevent the repetition of these circumstances

in Free, Inde-

F pendent India.

32. It has been contended before us that over the years, the purpose

for which these awards were instituted has been diluted and they are

granted liberally to persons who are undeserving of them. The perversion

of the system

was the motivating factor behind the Bill introduced in

G

Parliament by Acharya Kripalani to abolish these decorations. It is to be

remembered that Acharya Kripalani was the Chairman of the Sub-Com­

mittee on Fundamental Rights where the present Article

18{1) was

originally formulated. He

was, therefore, fully aware of the exact import of

Article 18(1).

It is significant that in the debates in

Parliament, the thrust

H of his attack was on the misuse of these decorations. However, it is

BALAJIRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1.[AHMADI,O.J 715

axiomatic that the misuse of a concept does not '\hange its inherent nature. A

The National Awards do not amount to "titles'" within the meaning of

Artide 18(1) and they should not be used as suffixes or prefJXes. 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 A~ards.

B

33. The guidelines contained in the communique from the Ministry

of Home Affairs towards the selection of probable recipients are extremely

wide, imprecise, amenable to abuse and wholly unsatisfactory for the

important objective that they seek to achieve. There are no limitations

prescribed for the maximum number of awards that can be granted in a C

given year or the maximum number that is permissible in each category.

The Prime Minister's Committee on Awards

& Honours, 1948 had recom­

mended certain limitations in terms of numbers but these have not been

incorporated in the extant guidelines.

As stated earlier, most countries have

provided for such limitations in respect of their

civil awards. That is for D

the obvious reason that the importance of the awards is not diluted. While

in the grant of the Bharat Ratna award sufficient restraint has been shown,

the same cannot be said of all other awards. The exercise of such restraint

is absolutely necessary to safeguard the importance of the awards. That is

why the need for necessarily granting awards every year also requires

reconsideration. These and the

fixing of other criteria, which will ensure E

that the recipients of these awards are subjected to feelings of respect

rather than suspicion, need to be examined by a high level Committee that

may be appointed

by the Prime Minister in consultation with the President

of India. Even otherwise it

is time that such a committee looks into the

working of the existing guidelines in view of the experience gained.

We say F

no mo.re as we have entrusted the task of setting up of the Committee to

high level functionaries. We may only say that the Committee

may keep in

view our anxiety that the

nu,;,_ber of Awards should not be so large as to

dilute

tl1eir value. We may point out that in some countries, including U .S.A, the total number of Awards to be given is restricted. With these

observations

we dispose of both the petitions -cases with no order as to G

costs.

34. Before we part with the case, we would like to record our

appreciation for the assistance provided to

us, at our request, by Mr.

Santosh Hegde, Senior Counsel.

H

716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A KULDIP SINGH, J. : I have read the opinion proposed by AM.

Ahmadi CJI. I agree with the Chief Justice that Bharat Raina and r dma

awards are not "titles" within Article 18 of the Constitution of India. These

awards can

be given to the citizens for exceptional and distinguished

services rendered

in art, literature, science and other fields. These awards

B are national in character and only those who have achieved distinction at

national level can be considered

for these awards. The question to be

considered, however,

is whether the purpose of instituting these awards is

being

a~;1ieved and these are being conferred on the deserving persons.

The history and experience

shows that, in the beginning, these awards were

given to a limited number of persons but

in the recent years there have

C been floodgates of awards for the persons who are well known, lesser

known and even unknown. The Padma awards have been conferred on

businessmen and industrialists who have multiplied their own wealth and

have hardly helped the growth of national interest. Persons with little or

no contribution in any field can be seen masquerading

as Padma awardees.

D The existing procedure for selection of candidates is wholly vague and is

open to abuse at the whims and fancies of the p~rsons in authority.

Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and fool-proof

method of selection

is bound to breed nepotism, favoritism, patronage and

even corruption.

E

F During the British occupation India has had a spate of title hunters

who brought degradation and much harm to healthy public life. The title

hunters have

always been considered a menace to the safe growth of a

society. Though the Padma awards are not titles but in case these awards

are given at the

whims of the authorities -without there being proper

criteria and method of selection -they are bound to do more harm to the

society than the title-seekers did during the British regime.

While opposing the

Bill titled

"The Conferment of Decorations on

Persons (Abolitio~) Bill, 1969" moved by Acharya J.B. Kripalani in the

Parliament, Mr. N.K.P. Salve in his speech (Parliamentary Debates,

G November 27, 1970) stated as under :

"SHRI N.K.P. SALVE: I am aware that the decorations have been

bestowed indiscriminately on businessmen and others. In fact, one

of

my suggestions is that any decoration awarded to any person

H who is found guilty of any 'commercial offence' should be

BALAIJRAGHAVANS.P.ANANDv. U.0.1. [KULDIPSINGH,J.] 717

withdrawn. We should be extremely, strict about the awarding of A

decorations ....... .

SHRIN.K.P. SALVE: I am entirely in agreement with Shri Madhu

Limaye that some

cf them have received these decorations without

deserving them in the least if at all they deserved anything, it was

something else. But they have received decorations. In fact, it

is B

within my knowledge that some of them have put their decorations

to commercial exploitation. Jn fact, a certain managing director of

a company

Wrote a letter to me sometime ago. On his letterhead

was written 'Ex-Rai Bahadur, Padma Vibhushan' so and so ....... .

The criteria for awarding these decorations are not very clear. The

c

Bharat Ratna is to be awarded for exceptional service towards the

advancement of art, literature and science, whereas the Padma

Vibhushan

is to be awarded for exceptional and distinguished

service. Bharat

Raina is for exceptional service and Padma Vib­

hushan is for exceptional and distinguished service. Exceptional D

and distinguished service must be given the number one decoration

and not number two. So, there is a patent fallacy in this type of

criteria which has been laid down.

It seems some bureaucrat has

written this without understanding all these anomalies in the mat-

ter. I

do hope that they do some amount of rationalisation of this

matter."

E

The above words were spoken in the Parliament about quarter of a

century back. There has been no application of mind at all by the successive

Governments

and the system of giving Padma awards is getting

degenerated with the passage of time.

It has already reached a point where F

political or narrow group interests are being rewarded by those in office

for the time being.

The examination of initial deliberations regarding institution of these

awards show that in the first meeting of the committee held on February

G

27, 1948 under the Chairmanship of Mr. B.N. Rau, it was recommended

that an extremely high standard should be prescribed for these awards and

total number of award to be given in each category should be limited and

fixed.

It was recommended that awards should be made very sparingly and

only on grounds of outstanding merit. They should not

be made merely

because there happen to be vacancies in a particular category. The Ministry

H

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of Home Affairs, Government of India, prepared a note dated January 10,

1953 for consideration of the Cabinet. It was proposed to institute suitable

awards for meritorious public services. The note clearly suggested that the

number of recipients in various awards must be restricted. The report

was

considered by the Cabinet

presided over by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru and was

B

accepted with some minor modifications.

Therefore,

to ensure that

Padma awards arc truly national in char­

acter and above party and political considerations. I suggest that a com­

mittee at national level be constituted by the Prime Minister of India in

consultation with the President of India which may include, among others,

C the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief justice of India or his nominee and

the leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. At the State level similar

committees

may be formed by the

Chief Minister of the State in consult­

ation with the Governor. The committee may, among others, include

Speaker of the Legislative A'Sembly, Chief Justice of the State or his

nominee and the leader of the Opposition.

D

The functmn of the State committees may only be to recommend the

names of the persons,

who in their opinion are deserving of a particular

award. The final decision shall have to be taken by the National Committee

on Awards.

No award should be conferred except on the recommendation

E of the National

Committee. The recommendation must have the approval

of the Prime Minister and the President of India.

F

The number of awards under each category must be curtailed to

preserve their prestige and dignity.

In any given year the awards, all put

together,

may not exceed fifty.

The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

v.s.s.

Petitions disposed of.