Prohibition of State Titles

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Military and academic distinctions are explicitly exempted, and they can be given to anyone, citizen or foreigner. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are contradictory. Article 18 explicitly prohibits any Indian citizen from accepting ANY title from a foreign state. The correct counterpart is a strict prohibition on foreign titles for citizens. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. The 1996 SC ruling UPHELD the National Awards, stating they are not 'titles of nobility'. The correct counterpart is that merit awards are constitutional.

The Assertion is correct. Padma Awards are constitutional. Reason (R1) is true and correctly explains the assertion. The 1996 SC ruling distinguished between banned nobility titles and permitted merit awards. Reason (R2) is factually false. The Constitution does not mention the Padma Awards; they are executive creations evaluated by the judiciary. The correct counterpart is that the awards rely on judicial interpretation, not textual mandate.

Statement 1 is incorrect. The ban has exceptions. The correct counterpart is that academic honors are exempt. Statement 2 is correct. The text of Article 18 prohibits titles 'except a military or academic distinction', and this applies regardless of the recipient's citizenship. Statement 3 is incorrect. There is no need to bypass anything, as the action is already textually constitutional under the academic exception.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Academic/military distinctions are expressly allowed for anyone. The correct counterpart is that they are exempt from the ban. Statement 2 is correct. Citizens cannot accept foreign titles. Statement 3 is incorrect. The SC UPHELD the awards, stating they are not titles of nobility. The correct counterpart is that National Awards are constitutional. Statement 4 is correct. The target of Article 18 is hereditary nobility. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.