Can honorific doctorates be used as “titles”? No. The Indian Constitution frowns upon this practice. In fact, the Constitution commands, “No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the state”.

This mandate, in Article 18, is one of our fundamental rights, as part of the right to equality. According to the meaning of the expression in the Constitution, every recognised university is also a “state” and cannot dole out doctorates that do not relate to “military or academic distinction”.
In January 1954, the Indian government, unable to overcome the feudal mindset, instituted the Bharat Ratna and three other Padma awards by a presidential notification. As could only be expected, these awards were freely used as prefixes to names — in other words, as titles. Consequently, the Government of India, in April 1968, issued a press note clarifying that these awards were not titles and the prevailing practice of using them as such was against the spirit of the Constitution that abolished titles.
Unsuccessful attempts were made in the 1960s by leaders like Acharya J.B. Kripalani to abolish the practice of conferment of these awards through legislation. They felt that these awards could not be part of a democratic society. The Janata government led by Morarji Desai discontinued the Padma awards with effect from August 1977. However, with Indira Gandhi getting reinstated in January 1980, the awards were restored.
The officially stated purposes for which these awards can be given are subjective and delightfully vague. The three Padma awards can be given for distinguished service of varying degrees in “any field”, but Sachin Tendulkar cannot be decorated with Bharat Ratna, which is for “exceptional service towards the advancement of art, literature and science and in recognition of public service of the highest order” — none of these criteria can be stretched to include the game of cricket.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, while moving the clause before the Constituent Assembly that eventually became Article 18, observed that the power of bestowing these titles was often abused and led to corrupt practices, as was being done by the British in India and, therefore, it was better that their abolition be provided as a fundamental right. The logic behind the opposition to these titles was that the British had divided the society through the mechanism of titles — rich or influential people started doing favours to the authorities to secure titles such as Rao Bahadur, Khan Bahadur and the like in return. It is no secret that lobbying for a Republic Day civilian award is an ongoing exercise year after year.
In the same context, M.R. Masani, a prominent statesman, stated: “This will mean that the free Indian state will not confer any titles of any kind, whether heritable or otherwise. It may be possible for the Union to honour some of its citizens who distinguish themselves in several walks of life, like science and the arts, with other kinds of honours not amounting 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.”
While supporting the view, Sri Prakasa, another member of the Constituent Assembly, said: “We are distinguishing between titles and honours. A title is something that hangs to one’s name. I understand it is a British innovation. Other states also honour their citizens for good work but those citizens do not necessarily hang their titles to their names as people in Britain or British-governed parts of the world do. That is all that this clause seeks to do. We want to abolish this corroding, corrupting practice which makes individuals go about currying favour with authority to get particular
distinctions.”
Thus, the framers of our Constitution, after serious deliberation, introduced Article 18, deprecating titles in no uncertain words.
In 1992, the constitutional validity of these awards was questioned in two separate writ petitions, one before the Kerala high court and the other before the Madhya Pradesh high court. Eventually, the matters were transferred to the Supreme Court and a five-member bench discussed the issue elaborately in Balaji Raghavan vs Union of India, (1996). The judgment provides a fund of useful information on the history and the issue of titles and finally declared: “Hereditary titles of nobility conflict with the principles of equality in so far as they create a separate identifiable class of people who are distinct from the rest of the society and have access to special privileges. The titles that are not hereditary but carry suffixes or prefixes have the same effect though the degree may be lesser.”
Discerning awardees do not use the Padma awards as prefixes or suffixes, nor do they wear honoris causa (for the sake of the honor) doctorate on their sleeve. However, may be out of ignorance, the vain practice of prefixing one’s names with “Dr”, and thus conveying a wrong impression that they are more learned than they really are, is on the increase.
Most surprisingly, several sitting and retired members of the higher judiciary seem to be ignorant of the law declared by the apex court of the land — they proudly attach the honorific doctorates to their names! In some parts of the country, every other politician is a “Dr”. Retired police officers of questionable credentials insist on being addressed as “doctor”. One university that had sought my professional services politely enquired if I would accept a doctorate in exchange for my fees. Since I said “no”, I got neither.
Article 18 is primarily an injunction against the state from conferring a title and from it flows the citizen’s right not to be treated differently. Violating a constitutional injunction is not an offence by itself — however, even an executive order conferring a doctorate that is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights is, “void”. Further, the legislatures are enabled to make laws prescribing punishment to the offenders. In the meanwhile, Indian universities would do well to follow their many foreign counterparts of repute who make a request that an honorary “doctor” refrains from the practice of exhibiting the “gifted” degree as a title.

The writer is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former additional solicitor-general of India