New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday heard a plea filed by advocate Durga Dutt, which sought directions to the Centre for enacting well-defined laws or rules to ensure that fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution are adhered to.
However, the court orally remarked during the hearing that it could not be asked to direct the Parliament or the state legislature to make laws for enforcing the duties.
Dutt had filed a public interest litigation before the apex court in April 2021. A three-judge bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan heard the matter.
The court pointed out that several laws and acts already entail fundamental duties and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) in their objectives.
“The Indian Penal Code contains provisions that relate to the preservation of communal harmony. Laws protecting public property and cultural, historical, and archaeological sites also exist. For everything, there is a law,” Justice Khanna said, as reported by the Supreme Court Observer.
What are fundamental duties?
Adopted in 1976 by way of the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, the fundamental duties of every citizen of India have been laid down under Article 51A, which comes under Part IVA of the Constitution.
Although Part IVA was not part of the Constitution originally, it was added via the 42nd Amendment, which is also known as the “Mini Constitution” and brought sweeping changes to 59 constitutional provisions, including the Preamble, and the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and its procedure under Article 368.
Simply put, Part IVA lists the non-enforceable obligations and duties for Indian citizens.
Article 51A enumerates the 11 fundamental duties and states: “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem;
(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals, which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures;
(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement;
(k) who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.
While the first 10 duties were inserted into the Constitution in 1976 by the Indira Gandhi government, the last one, which relates to providing educational opportunities for children between the ages of six and fourteen, was added nearly 26 years later through the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act in 2002, under the government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Besides the Indian Constitution, the Japanese and Russian Constitution(s) also include fundamental duties.
Also Read: With new portal on courtroom humour, Delhi HC upholds the right to be funny
What the plea said
Noting that non-adherence to fundamental duties has a direct bearing on the exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights, guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom) and 21 (life), the petitioner sought the formation and operationalisation of an appropriate scheme for the same.
The petition argued that fundamental duties are aimed at serving as a constant reminder to citizens that while the Constitution confers on them certain fundamental rights, it also requires them to observe certain basic norms of democratic conduct and behaviour, as rights and duties are correlated.
It also sought directions to Centre and states for framing guidelines for taking appropriate steps to sensitise people and spread general awareness among them about the performance of fundamental duties.
The plea also added that the Supreme Court’s 2003 judgement in “Hon’ble Shri Ranganath Mishra v Union of India” had said that the Centre should take steps to implement the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee report that was released in 1999.
The Verma Committee
The committee was set up in 1998 to “operationalise the suggestions to teach fundamental duties to the citizens of the country”. Among other things, it had recommended that governments sensitise people towards such duties, create awareness about them, and achieve their enforceability, not just through legal sanctions, but also through social sanctions and the creation of role models.
“It is important that the people become conscious of both rights and duties and grow with the understanding that rights without obligations encourage arrogance and duties without rights give rise to a form of slavery,” the report read.
On 21 February, 2022, the top court had issued a notice on the petition, saying that several issues raised in the case fell “within the domain of political dispensation, as reflected by the elected body through an electoral process”.
The court had also asked the Centre to inform it whether any steps had been taken in pursuance of the 2003 ruling in the Ranganath Mishra case or if it proposed to take any steps towards it.
What the Centre said
At Wednesday’s hearing, Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani submitted a written note before the top court, which said: “The judiciary and this court in particular have also been consistently proactive about taking steps to give effect to fundamental duties as far as possible. While examining the importance of fundamental duties in various cases, this court has consistently opined that such duties provide a valuable guide and aid to the interpretation of constitutional and legal issues as also imposing a social obligation on all citizens of India.”
However, he clarified that implementing such duties “is and will always be a continuing task” that calls for duty-specific legislation, schemes and supervision. Ministries, both at the central and state level, in relation to education and culture, may be called upon to continue to be engaged in the above regard, he added.
Venkataramani also said that the executive and judiciary are well aware that mere incorporation of duties in Article 51A is insufficient to ensure that they are actually implemented, particularly given their non-justiciable status.
Recalling the Verma committee report, the senior most law officer said that it is well settled that fundamental duties are not justiciable per se and their implementation lies within the domain of the executive.
“Thus, it is submitted that this court may be pleased to take note of the various steps proposed/taken, and accordingly close the present proceedings, subject to any directions as may be deemed fit to be passed by this court in this regard,” he said, while seeking to close the matter, as reported by Live Law.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)