AHMADI - (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 364 have given rise to this issue were filed in the High courts of Kerala and Madhya Pradesh (Indore bench), respectively. The petitioner in TC (C) No. 9 of 1994, Balaji Raghavan (hereinafter called 'Petitioner 1') had filed OP No. 2110 of 1992 (hereinafter called 'the OP') on 13/2/1992 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 TC (C) no. 1 of 1995, S.P. Anand (hereinafter called 'Petitioner 2') filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 1900 of 1992 (hereinafter called 'the MP') on 24/8/1992, before the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court, praying for the same relief. In the Kerala High court, the two contesting parties filed written submissions and counters between 30/9/1992 and 7/4/1994. During this period, the High court of Kerala did not hear 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 25/8/1992, through an ex parte order, issued notice to the respondent and also restrained it from conferring on any person or persons any of the National Awards, until further orders. The respondent filed TPs (C) Nos. 6 and 7 before this court, seeking to transfer the case and to vacate the ex parte order of the High court of Madhya Pradesh dated 25/8/1992. On 8/1/1993, a division bench of this court, while refusing to transfer the case to itself, directed the Madhya Pradesh High court to give its decision on the application filed by the respondent for vacating the ex parte order, on or before 20/1/1993. On 20/1/19933, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court vacated its earlier order dated 25/8/1992. Meanwhile, the respondent filed TPs (C) Nos. 811-812 of 1993, by which it sought transfer of both the OP and the MP to this court. On 29/10/1993, a division bench of this court directed that the matter be posted before a bench presided over by the chief justice of India on 17/1/1994. On that day, a bench of this court presided over by the then chief justice issued notice in TPs Nos. 811-812 of 1993 and stayed further proceedings in both the petitions. Later, on 7/3/1994, this court transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself. Thereafter, on 11/9/1995, TCs (C) Nos. 9 of 1994 and 1 of 1995 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 Petitioner 1 and the respondent submitted their written briefs within the stipulated time, Petitioner 2, however, failed to do so. The date for the hearing before this Constitution bench was fixed for 14/11/1995. On 31/10/1995, Petitioner 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 dated 1/11/1995 and 6/11/1995, which were received by the Supreme court on 15/11/1995 and 21/11/1995 respectively, 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 365 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 the court. Hence we have refused to entertain his request.
(3.) 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 the Constitution of India was formally drafted. On 13/2/1948, the Prime Minister's Committee on Honours and Awards was set up under the Chairmanship of the Constitutional Adviser to the government of India, Sir B.N. Rau. ITs 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 decorations, carrying no title, were not meant to be prohibited. IT submitted its report on 9/3/1948 and gave extensive suggestions in respect of each of the subjects upon which it had been required to give its recommendations. Thereafter, in a series of meetings held between 30/5/1948 and 29/10/1953, the Cabinet had occasion to discuss the nature and conditions of the proposed National Awards. The National Awards were formally instituted in January 1954 by two Presidential Notifications No. 1-Pres./54 and No. 2-Pres./54 dated 2/1/1954 which were subsequently superseded by four fresh notifications, viz., No. 1- Pres./55, 2-Pres./55, 3-Pres./55 and 4-Pres./55 dated 8/1/1955. The purpose for which these awards were to be given are as follows: JUDGEMENT_361_1_1996Html1.htm 366 The aforementioned Presidential notifications also provide that any person, without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex, shall be eligible for these awards and also that the decorations may be awarded posthumously.;