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.

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

Meaning

Titles like zamindaar, bahadhur etc. were prevalent in medieval India. But this article 18 of the Indian constitution abolished the titles as to preserve the equality and also to maintain the democracy in the country. There are four clauses in this article which states:

Ø Preventing the state to confer titles except for military and academic achievements.

Ø the citizens of the India shall not accept any titles from the foreign state.

Ø But foreign nationals who holds the office or trust under the state can accept titles from any foreign state with the consent of the president only.

 Titles may effect the true sense of democracy by creating unnecessary hereditary heirarchies in the society.

Explanation

Before independence, it was the British tradition to award titles like Rao saheb , Diwan saheb, Rao bahadur,etc. This resulted into artificial distinction in the society as the people with this title got certain privileges. The Constitution has abolished such titles to preserve the true sence of democracy by ensuring equality and dignity among citizens of the country.

In Indian Constitution, as its Preamble states, wanted to rebuild a cohesive and integrated society by providing for equality of status. This is what ARTICLE 18 does and is all about.

Recognition of the titles and the creation of a hierarchy of aristocracy which is its consequence had been considered as an anti- democratic practice in the early eighteen century by both the American and the french revolutions. A democracy should not create titles and which leads to inequality.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar quoted in the constituent assembly that Article 18 did not create a justifiable right.

"One of the conditions is that he must not accept a title, if he did, it would be open for Parliament to decide by law what should be done to persons who violate the provisions of this article. One of the penalties may be that he may lose the right of citizenship."

thus, this article put an obligation to both the state and citizens from recognizing and accepting the titles. The prohibition applicable to not only the state and the citizens but also extends to the foreigners who holds office or trust under the state, but they can accept the titles from another state with the consent of the president.

Need and importance

Article 18 of the Indian constitution which talks about the abolition of the titles is very important article in a developing democratic country like India.

Democratic India is based on the four pillars of the constitution which are justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. The titles which were prevalent from the medieval India disturbs the structure of the democracy by creating artificial distinction in the society. So, there is a need to abolish the titles and uphold the concept of equality among the individuals.  

Authors note

In free india everyone is equal. In Balaji Raghavan V. union of India the petetioners contented that national awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Bhushan, Padma Sri etc. were also titles under the article 18 of the Indian constitution so, they should be abolished. But the supreme court upheld the validity of national awads, the national awards are not violative of article 18 of the constitution. They are the appreciation for the excellence and the exceptional services provided by them.the national awards cannot be put as a prefix or suffix to the name of the individual.

 It is also to be noted that there is absolutely no penalty for infringement of the above prohibition of titles. Article 18 is merely directory article. However, it is on to the Parliament to make laws for dealing with such persons who accept a title in violation of the prohibition prescribed in the Article 18. No such law has been passed by the Parliament so far.

19. Right to Freedom

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) omitted

(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence

(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause

(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause

(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe

(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise

Meaning

Article 19 of the Indian constitution guarantees six freedoms to the citizens of India. They are: Right to

1.   freedom of speech and expression

2.   Peaceful assembly without arms.

3.   To form associations or unions

4.   Move freely throught the territory of India

5.   Reside and settle in any part of the India

6.   Hold , dispose property (omitted)

7.   Practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

The rights provided under this article are not absolute. as of now each freedom contains restrictions. The clauses 2 to 6 of the article provides reasonable restrictions to the six freedom of rights.

There are total eight grounds on which the restrictions may impose:

·      The security of the State,

·      friendly relations with foreign States,

·       public order,

·      decency or morality, or

·       in relation to contempt of court,

·      defamation or

·      incitement to an offence

·      sovereignty and integrity of nation

·      in the interest of scheduled tribes

Explanation

Freedom of speech

The freedom of speech which is the one of the freedom in article 19 provides right to express one’s opinion through oral, written, electronic, broad casting or press. Right to remain silent is also included in this right. Press has no specific reference in this article. Dr. B.R Ambedkar had said that the editors or managers of press and all the citizens of the country and when they chose to write in newspapers they are merely expressing their right of expression. Now a days blogs and websites are included to this list. This right may be restricted on eight grounds they are:

·      The security of the State,

·      friendly relations with foreign States,

·       public order,

·      decency or morality, or

·       in relation to contempt of court,

·      defamation or

·      incitement to an offence

Freedom of assembly

The constitution guarantees right to hold meetings, demonstrations. The meetings associated should be peaceful and without arms. This right can be excercised only on public land. section 144 sub clause (6) of the Cr. PC can be imposed on the government in certain areas which makes the assembly of five or more people an unlawful assembly. It was challenged in supreme court in kamla kanth mishra &ors. V. state of Bihar &ors. The court upheld the validity of the section and held that this section is not violative of article 19 (1) (b). state can impose reasonable restrictions on grounds of  interest of sovereignty and integrity of nation, or public order

Freedom of association

All the citizens have right to form associations, societies, clubs, organizations, trade unions  etc. it does not include right to strike. the state can impose restrictions on grounds of interest of public order.

Freedom of movement

Every citizen of the India has right to move freely from one state to another within the territory of the India. But the state can restrict the right on the ground of protection of tribal areas to protect the distinctive culture, language, morals, and tradition

Supreme court held in smt. Kaushalya v. state, the freedom of the movement of the prostitute can be restricted on the ground of public health and public morals.

Freedom of residence.

Every citizen of the India has right to reside in the any part of the country temporarily or permanently with certain restrictions

Freedom to trade, and occupation

Constitution guarantees freedom to trade, occupation and business in any part of the country to earn livelihood with certain restrictions.

Need and importance

Right to freedom in Indian constitution is one of the most important fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. These freedoms basically allows a person to do whatever he wants to do but with certain restrictions.

Authors note

It is logical that equal rights for all must mean limited rights for any. So, there are certain restrictions on the exercise of these rights. But this led to the criticism that Indian freedom is a myth, for what has been given to one hand has been taken from another. This criticism is clearly unfair .

20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

Meaning

It is one of the pillars of the fundamental rights guaranteed bu the constitution of India. It provides certain rights to safe guard the accused to allow fair trail. They are :

Exposto facto law

Immunity from double punishment

Self incrimination

Explanation

Article 20(1) prohibiting ‘ex post facto law’ it is a latin expression "from a thing done afterward". An ex post facto law is one that declares someone's action to be criminal only after it was committed. Ex post facto law is against the rule of law which is the person subjected to only known and established law.

For instance, According to Hindu marriage act, 1955 bigamy – an offence. It was offensive only when the law is established i.e. 1955.

It means the law cannot punish the acts done prior to its existence. An individual cannot be punished retrospectively.

Article 20(2) prohibits double jeopardy. The jeopardy means danger/harm/punishments, double jeopardy means double punishment. The constitution prohibits the multiple punishments and proceedings for a same mistake. It is likely to be taken from the U.S constitution. There is a maxim related to this - There is a law maxim related to this – nemo debet bis vexari. This means that no man shall be tried or punished twice for the same offence. Autrifois convict and Autrifois Aquit are the two maxims meaning previously convicted and previously aquited. A person cannot be punished for the offence that he has been previously convicted or aquited. This doctrine is against the double jeopardy. The subsequent trial and the conviction for other offence doesn’t come under the doctrine double jeopardy.

20(3) of the Indian constitution prohibiting self incrimination. Self incrimination means exposing oneself by making a statement by means of duress. That no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This is based on the legal maxim that accused is innocent until proven guilty it is the ideology of Indian penal code. The obligation of proving guilt lies on the prosecution.

Need and importance

Indian constitution guarantees rights to the accused for fair trail. This article limits the legislative power. It is only applicable to criminal proceedings.