Can't Direct Enactment Of Law To Enforce Fundamental Duties, Says Supreme Court During PIL Hearing

While hearing a plea relating to fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court today expressed that it cannot direct the legislature to enact a law for enforcement of the same.

"The cause that you (petitioner) are espousing is certainly relevant. Duties are very important. When you have rights, duties are also to be...there are number of judgments. But we can't direct legislature to enact a law. It's something which citizens or people of the country have to be conscious about", said Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

A bench of Justices Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan was hearing a petitioner filed by Advocate Durga Dutt, seeking enforcement of the Fundamental Duties enshrined in Part IV-A of the Constitution. Notice was issued on the same, to a limited extent, in the year 2022.

The petitioner claimed that Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution) and Fundamental Duties are co-extensive, as in some cases, the violation of Fundamental Duties can lead to the violation of Fundamental Rights.

During today's proceedings, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared for the Union and expressed reservations about the Court directing the enacting of a law for enforcement of the fundamental duties. However, without being adversarial, he pointed to certain measures being taken by Departments, Ministries, schools, etc. to create awareness about fundamental duties.

The AG expressed that a sanctioned punishment would not be the right way to enforce fundamental duties. He added that sensitivity towards the same can only be nurtured in people. Further, it was submitted there are legislations in place, and programmes/plays being conducted in schools, etc., which create awareness about and promote fundamental duties.

Senior Advocate Ranjith Kumar, for petitioner, argued that citizens are only aware of Fundamental Rights, but not sensitized about the significance of Fundamental Duties. "Some of them are very, very relevant today. Even today, a person is not sensitized or knows that there is an Article 51A existing...people or citizens of this country should know what is Fundamental Duty...Is it too much to ask of a citizen that you have certain duties to the nation, to this great country of ours, which we have achieved through a long process? Is it too much to ask that people should be aware of this and adhere to certain duties?" he said.

In support of the prayers, the senior counsel relied on Hon'ble Shri Ranganath Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., where the Union was asked to take steps to implement recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee report (2000). This report gave various recommendations as regards the mode and manner to be adopted for generating awareness and consciousness among citizens towards fundamental duties.

After hearing the counsels, Justice Khanna conveyed that the Court cannot direct the legislature to make a law to enforce Fundamental Duties. Rather, its the people in the country that have to be conscious about fundamental duties.

Referring to certain legislations, the judge added that their statements and objects would seem to comply with one or more clauses of Article 51A. An example was given by linking the fundamental duty regarding maintenance of communal harmony to the IPC provisions dealing with communal tensions (Section 153A IPC, etc.).

Drawing attention to Article 51A(f), Justice Khanna remarked that there are executive actions and laws to protect cultural heritage (like signboards to prevent damage to archeological sites and laws dealing with defacement/destruction). "For everything, there is already a law", said the judge.

The hearing ended with the bench requesting the AG to file a synopsis of various laws enacted on different facets of Fundamental Duties.

Case Title: DURGA DUTT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., WP(C) No. 67/2022