Fundamental Duties
Fundamental Duties were incorporated in our constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976. In the beginning, the makers of our constitution did not show keen interest in adding fundamental duties to the constitution. Mahatma Gandhi strongly, laid emphasis on the duties of Indian citizens before they enjoy fundamental rights. The Karachi Congress session formulated a list of duties and fundamental rights in 1931. The Swaran Singh Committee set up by the Congress Party in 1976 recommended the inclusion of ten fundamental duties in the constitution. The Congress government in the Centre accepted these recommendations and enacted the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976. The following are the ten fundamental duties of the Indian citizens:
Respecting the constitution, the national flag and the national anthem. Cherishing and following the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom, Protecting the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Defending the country by rendering national services when called for. Promoting the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all Indians. Preserving the rich heritage of our composite culture. Protecting and improving the natural environment. Developing the scientific temper and spirit of inquiry. Safeguarding public property. Striving towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity. | The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 added one more fundamental duty. “to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between the age of six and fourteen years.”
The above duties were incorporated in the constitution to promote responsible behaviour among Indian citizens. These duties would promote individual and national welfare. Prior to the inclusion of these duties, the makers of our constitution, through Article 18, prohibited the assumption of titles from foreign states. But they did not mention any coercive action for those who assume titles of foreign states. But some constitutional experts opined that the parliament by law could deprive the citizenship of such citizens. Some of the fundamental duties are vague. Ordinary citizens cannot understand them. Some of the duties were already in existence, since independence. For instance, respecting the national flag, the national anthem, eschewing violence, safeguarding public property etc. were mentioned in the form of laws. Destruction of public property, recourse to violence etc. were considered as offences and crimes under the Indian Penal Code. Hence constitutional experts opposed the inclusion of these duties in the constitution under a separate caption. Besides, the inclusion of these duties in Part IV-A (which is non-judicial) was also criticised. As the Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable, these duties lack legal force. The Union Government was of the view that it is difficult to compel the citizens to perform these duties and cooperation is the only way to make the citizens to think and act in the case of these duties. Citizens must be enlightened and educated about the need for and significance of these duties. On the whole, fundamental duties are considered as pious wishes and sacred vows to be observed by the Indian citizens.
Fundamental Rights And The Directive Principles
It should be remembered that the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles are all integral parts of the same constitutional edifice. They are all equally important and have to be read with each other.
The emphasis in the entire scheme of the Constitution under the headings of the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles is on building an egalitarian society and on the concept of socio-economic justice. In as much as the Directive Principles, though declared to be fundamental as guiding principles for making and administering laws, were not made enforceable in courts of law. They represented a subtle compromise between what the framers, as the leaders of the freedom struggle, looked upon as the ideal or the goal and what, as realists, they found to be immediately feasible. The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles together constituted the soul of the Constitution.
It is now clearly understood that there is no essential dichotomy between Rights and Duties or between the fundamental rights, and the Directive Principles. They complement and supplement each other (Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala, 1973). If the Fundamental Rights represent the don’ts for the Government and the legislature, the Directive Principles represent the dos.
While speaking on the Constitution Fourth Amendment in the Lok Sabha, Nehru declared that the responsibility for the economic and social welfare policies of the nation should lie with Parliament: and not with the courts. In so far as the decisions of courts had shown that there was some inherent contradiction between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, it was for Parliament to remove the contradiction and “make Fundamental Rights subserve the Directive: Principles of State Policy”.
Later, in Keshavanand Bharti’s case (1973) Justice Mathew made the following significant observation: The Fundamental Rights themselves have no fixed content; most of them are merely empty vessels into which each generation must pour its content in the light of its experience. Restrictions, abridgement, curtailment, and even abrogation of these rights in circumstances not visualized by the Constitution makers might become necessary; their claim to supremacy. or priority is liable by the moral claims embodied in Part IV. Whether at a particular moment in the history of the nation, a particular fundamental right should have priority over the moral: claim embodied in Part IV or must yield to them is a matter which must be left to be decided by each generation in the light of its experience and its values. And, if Parliament in its capacity as the Amending Body, decides to amend the Constitution in such a way as to take away or abridge a Fundamental Right to give priority value to be moral claims embodied in Part IV of the Constitution, the Court cannot adjudge the constitutional amendment as bad for the reason that what was intended to be subsidiary by the Constitution-makers has been made dominant. Judicial review of a constitutional amendment for the reason that it gives priority value to the moral claims embodied in Part IV over the Fundamental Rights embodied, in Part III is impermissible.
Next comes the union executive. Check out the notes here.