Enforcement of Fundamental Duties | Day 1: A comprehensive law enforcing fundamental duties is the “need of the hour,” argue petitioners
Enforcement of Fundamental DutiesJudges: Sanjiv Khanna J, P.V. Sanjay Kumar J, R. Mahadevan J
Today, a three-judge bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna, P.V. Sanjay Kumar, and R. Mahadevan briefly heard a plea on whether fundamental duties under Article 51A of the Constitution are enforceable. Though not enforceable by law, the provision lists 11 duties which every citizen of India “shall” follow. These duties include abiding by the Constitution, upholding the sovereignty of India, preserving the rich culture and heritage and more.
In April 2021, Advocate Durga Dutt, had filed a petition claiming that fundamental duties are as important as fundamental rights. However, duties are “brazenly flouted” by citizens. Dutt relied on the Soviet Union’s Constitution which placed fundamental rights and duties on the same footing. According to him, a comprehensive code for the enforcement of fundamental duties was needed.
In 2022, after a brief hearing, a bench of Justices S.K. Kaul and M.M. Sundresh issued notices to the Union and state governments.The case was admitted for regular hearings in March 2024 by a bench of Justices Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the petitioner and Attorney General R. Venkataramani appeared for the Union government today
Kumar: Citizens need to be sensitised towards fundamental duties
Kumar claimed that the fundamental duties under Part IVA of the Constitution, were enforceable as they do not form a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). He relied on Hon’ble Shri Ranganath Mishra v Union of India (2003), which held that the Union government should take steps to implement recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee report (2000). The committee report called for “citizenship values” which were a combination of “rights and duties.” “They must know what are fundamental duties,” Kumar said. He claimed that citizens were not sensitised to the significance of Article 51A. According to him, some of the fundamental duties were the “need of the hour”..
Justice Khanna: How can the Court direct legislation?
Appearing sceptical, Justice Khanna stated that the Court cannot direct Parliament or state legislatures to make laws to enforce duties. He said that it would be difficult to prepare a uniform code that will include a “sanctioned punishment” for the violation of fundamental duties. Moreover, he highlighted that several statutes and laws already mention fundamental duties and DPSPs in their statement of objects. He gave an example of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which contains provisions that relate to the preservation of communal harmony. He stated that laws protecting public property and cultural, historical, and archaeological sites also exist. “For everything there is a law”, he stated. He also pointed out , state governments had adopted measures such as cultural events and plays to promote the fundamental duties.
Venkataramani claimed that his written note included examples of legislations that were made on the basis of the distinct fundamental duties mentioned under Article 51A. The Attorney General claimed that there cannot be a law to promote duties, as they can only be nurtured. He submitted that Article 51A was included in the Constitution to promote a “national culture.” With an assuring voice, he stated that the culture of fundamental duties will take time but there are systems in place to promote them.
The Bench directed Venkataramani to submit a list of all legislations that deal with the fundamental duties within six weeks time. The case will be listed for hearing after eight weeks (around the first week of November 2024).