Attorney General Objects To Plea In Supreme Court To Enforce Fundamental Duties

Further, the bench had sought the assistance of the Attorney General of India K. K. Venugopal.

On Monday, at the outset, the AG told the bench, "I am appearing on notice. I have an objection to this petition itself because the Department of Justice on its website shows the tremendous amount of work which has been done for the purpose of sensitising people, both citizens and the students, about Article 51A. And the curriculum of the schools contains the entire 51A with duties to be taught to them, debates have been held throughout the country, etc. The leaders have addressed on this aspect- the President, the Prime Minister- from time to time. The one-year awareness drive was launched..."

Justice Kaul: "That is fine. We were also circumspect in issuing the notice and we said that it falls within the domain of political dispensation. We only wanted to know the limited point on which we had issued notice was the petitioner's reference to prayers 'a' and 'g' in the petition. We say that pursuant to the observation in Ranganath Mishra v. Union of India, the government may inform as to whether any steps have been taken pursuant to the judgment or does it propose to take any steps. That is the very limited mandate of our notice"

AG: "This has been elaborately set out on the website of the Ministry of Justice. There is a duty on the part of any PIL petitioner to first investigate and then come forward and say what is necessary. There was the Citizens' Duties Awareness programme covering to about 48 crore citizens, there have been programmes in schools..."

Justice Kaul: "Can you place the affidavit on record so that we can have the benefit of seeing it also and passing a concrete order?"

AG: "I am appearing as the Attorney General. Your lordships may direct the Union of India..."

Justice Kaul: "You say the mandate of the judgment has been implemented?"

AG: "There is a duty on the PIL petitioner to know the facts first"

Justice Kaul: "We will note that, the Union of India can place it on record, then we will close the proceedings"

AG: "Prayer (a) and (g) are seeking direction to make a law which Your Lordships have held cannot be..."

Justice Kaul: "Therefore, the question is do you propose to do something or not?"

AG: "No, My Lords, there is no need for it. First of all, your lordships will not direct the Parliament to make a law..."

An advocate appearing for the solicitor general advanced that "we will take instructions and file a response in this matter"

Justice Kaul: "We are told by the government that the Solicitor General is also appearing and they would like to place on record..."

AG: "I am appearing as Attorney General, SG will be appearing for the Union of India"

Justice Kaul: "Yes, and as the senior most law officer, we wanted to know from you what is happening"

AG: "The prayer has sought issuance of directions to the Union and states to make comprehensive well defined laws for ensuring the adherence of Fundamental Duties and requiring the citizens to perform their Fundamental Duties properly. I don't see how the prayer will lie. (g) seeks framing guidelines/ regulations for taking appropriate adequate steps to sensitise the people and spread general awareness among the citizens in relation to performance of Fundamental Duties. The Prayer will not lie!"

Justice Kaul: "That is why we had asked that the government may inform the court as to whether any steps have been taken in pursuance to the judgment or if it proposes to. We will not use our mandamus"

AG: "Very well . the solicitor general may file the counter. But the entire thing is there on the website..."

The bench then proceeded to dictate the following order: "The AG has put in appearance and states that there is huge amount of material on the website itself with which the petitioner should have apprised himself and which would have given him answers to the questions he is seeking to pose. This is apart from the fact that the Attorney states that the nature of mandamus sought cannot be granted. We did put to the learned attorney that we had issued notice in a very narrow compass for the government to inform us as to the steps, if any, taken in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Hon'ble Shri Ranganath Mishra v. Union of India. On the behalf of the Union of India, the counsel who entered appearance submits that the Solicitor General would be appearing and they would like to place on record the counter affidavit. The needful be done on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 within four weeks. Some of the other states have also entered appearance and if they so desire, they can also file their counter affidavit within the same period of time. The rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List in the first miscellaneous week of July 2022 post the summer recess."