Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties conflicts.
Revisiting Fundamental Duties in India: Emphasis on Awareness and Legislation
Recently, the Attorney General of India submitted a note to the Supreme Court in the case of Durga Dutt v Union of India & ors. The petitioners requested the Court to instruct the Centre and states to create comprehensive legislation ensuring compliance with Part IV-A of the Constitution. Their goal is to raise public awareness regarding the significance of Article 51A, which outlines fundamental duties. This request references the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Ranganath Mishra v Union of India, which emphasized the necessity for both legal and social enforceability of fundamental duties.
Historical Background of Fundamental Duties
The framers of the Constitution did not extensively discuss the need for fundamental duties, primarily focusing on protecting citizens from arbitrary actions by the state through fundamental rights. Nonetheless, some assembly members argued for a balance between citizens’ rights and their obligations. Ultimately, this perspective was set aside, with the belief that civic responsibilities would evolve naturally.
Years later, following the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee, the legislature recognized the importance of explicitly defining these duties. As a result, the 42nd Amendment in 1976 incorporated Part IVA (Article 51A), inspired by the Constitution of the USSR. Today, Article 51A outlines eleven fundamental duties, with the 86th Amendment in 2002 adding 51A(k).
Characteristics of Fundamental Duties
Unlike fundamental rights, fundamental duties are non-justiciable and represent civic obligations. They establish essential norms for democratic conduct.
The Swaran Singh Committee stressed the importance of educating citizens, especially students, about these duties. It proposed making fundamental duties legally enforceable, with suggested penalties for violations.
However, the idea of imposing penalties for these duties was dismissed by both the judiciary and Parliament, given their moral nature. Legal enforcement presents challenges, especially regarding duties that promote scientific temper or protect public property, complicating how to impose penalties for failing to uphold such responsibilities.
Relationship Between Rights and Duties
In the Durga Dutt case, petitioners contended that fundamental rights and duties are interconnected; one’s violation can lead to the infringement of the other. For instance, protesters blocking roads can breach their duty to the nation while impeding others’ rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
However, enforcing fundamental duties may conflict with fundamental rights. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) exemplifies this, where three children from the Jehovah’s Witness community were expelled for not singing the National Anthem. The Court upheld their right to free speech over the duty to respect national symbols, asserting that they did not violate the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. This decision subsequently influenced the Ranganath Mishra writ petition.
Past Efforts and Recommendations
Before the Ranganath ruling, a Justice Verma Committee was formed in 1998 to promote awareness of fundamental duties among citizens. The committee suggested creating educational materials and training programs for teachers and the general public.
In the Durga Dutt case, Justice Khanna pointed out that existing laws, like Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, already support fundamental duties, such as maintaining communal harmony.
Diverse Interpretations and Legal Challenges
It is essential to understand that while all eleven fundamental duties are legally equivalent, they carry different implications in spirit. The judiciary has utilized certain duties as guiding principles for interpreting laws and adjudicating cases. For example, duties listed in Articles 51A (a), (f), (g), and (i) pursue more concrete goals, while those under (b), (h), and (j) aim to instill ideals that require various approaches.
Specific legislation reinforces these duties, such as the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which upholds the duty to safeguard public property.
Concerns Regarding Enforceability
Enacting unnecessary laws could overwhelm the legal system with trivial petitions and waste resources. As demonstrated in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, differing interpretations of fundamental duties can lead to unwanted legal disputes and conflicts between rights and responsibilities. Enforcing these duties could grant the government excessive control over areas like public expression and behavior, potentially stifling dissent. Ordinary actions, like not participating in national programs, could lead to penalties, infringing on personal freedoms.
In contrast to socialist nations, Western countries do not clearly impose civic duties on their citizens. Although Japan’s Constitution includes certain responsibilities, countries like Britain, Canada, and Australia mainly rely on common law and judicial interpretation to foster civic responsibility without imposing formal duties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, not every fundamental duty necessitates legal enforcement. Instead of creating new laws, it is more effective to educate and raise awareness among citizens, fostering a sense of responsibility and virtue, as suggested by the Justice Verma Committee.
Disclaimer: (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the KanoonKiBaat staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Source Link
