Consider the following statements: (a) Indian Constitution does not allow the…

The Constitution's abolition-of-titles guarantee (Article 18) bars the State from conferring any title on a citizen or foreigner except a military or academic distinction; it targets the State's act of conferring or permitting a title, not merely the existence of an honour.

Statement (a) is a direct, accurate restatement of Article 18(1): the State cannot confer any title other than a military or academic distinction. Statement (b) tests a separate, judicially settled question: in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that national awards such as the Bharat Ratna and the Padma awards are not ‘titles’ under Article 18(1), so conferring them is constitutional — but the Court simultaneously held that a recipient may NOT use the award as a prefix or suffix to their name; doing so would convert the award into a title in substance, which Article 18 forbids, and can even lead to forfeiture of the award. So the award itself survives Article 18 scrutiny, but using it as a name-prefix or name-suffix does not.

• ‘(a) is correct but (b) is wrong’ matches both findings — the title-conferring ban is textually true, and the prefix/suffix use is barred by the Supreme Court.

• ‘(a) is wrong but (b) is correct’ wrongly treats the Article 18(1) text itself as false.

• ‘Both (a) and (b) are correct’ wrongly assumes that because the Bharat Ratna is not a ‘title’, it may therefore be attached to a name — the Court’s ruling forecloses exactly this inference.

• ‘Neither (a) nor (b) is correct’ wrongly rejects (a), which is textually accurate.

So only the combination where (a) holds and (b) fails matches both the constitutional text and the settled case law.