The Fundamental Duties

The stated purpose is easier to defend. A right against the State is worth little in a society whose members will not keep the peace, protect public property or send their children to school. The duties name the conduct on which the rights depend.

The provision

Article 51A provides: "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India", and then lists them.

• (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
• (b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
• (c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
• (d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
• (e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood "amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women";
• (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
• (g) to protect and improve the natural environment "including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures";
• (h) to develop "the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform";
• (i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
• (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity;
• (k) the citizen "who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years."

Broken down

They bind citizens, and only citizens. Part IV addresses "the State" and article 21 protects every person. Article 51A addresses "every citizen of India", so a foreigner is outside it entirely. That is the sharpest textual difference between the three Parts.

Clause (k) is different in kind from the other ten. Clauses (a) to (j) are addressed to every citizen. Clause (k) is addressed only to a citizen who is a parent or guardian, and it names a defined class of children and a defined age range. It is the only duty with an identifiable duty-holder, an identifiable beneficiary and a measurable content, which is why it does real work in litigation.

Part IVA contains nothing else. There is no article corresponding to article 37, which for Part IV says both that the principles are unenforceable and that they are fundamental in governance. Part IVA is one article and a heading. It creates no remedy and no offence, and it does not say what happens if a citizen ignores it.

Nothing follows automatically from breach. Not flying a flag correctly, or being uncivil about the composite culture, is not itself unlawful. It becomes unlawful only if a statute makes it so, and then the citizen is punished under the statute and not under article 51A.

Then what is a duty that binds nobody for?

Three uses, and every one of them is a real case rather than a theory.

It makes a restriction reasonable. A law restricting a freedom in article 19(1) must be a reasonable restriction. Where the law asks a citizen to do what article 51A already says he ought to do, the restriction is much harder to attack.

It supports State action against a challenge. A policy attacked as unconstitutional can be defended by showing that it pursues a duty the Constitution itself imposes. That is exactly what happened in Aruna Roy.

It balances a right, so the right can be given a workable content. The clearest instance is education: article 21A puts the duty to provide on the State, and article 51A(k) puts a duty on the parent, and the Court has used the pair to explain why a private school may be made to share the burden.

The cases

Facts. Ms. Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176, (2002) 7 SCC 368, decided 12 September 2002. A public interest petition under article 32 attacked the National Curriculum Framework for School Education published by the NCERT, on the grounds that it had not been approved by the Central Advisory Board of Education and that its provision for value education and for teaching about religions was anti-secular and violated articles 27 and 28.

Held. The petition was dismissed. Non-consultation with the Board was no ground to set the Framework aside, since the Board is not a statutory body and no rule required its consultation. On the merits, the Framework "nowhere talks of imparting religious instructions as prohibited under Article 28"; what it seeks is value education and an awareness that the essence of every religion is common. And the Framework "would also be in consonance with the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A of the Constitution", the Court setting out clauses (e), (g) and (i) and asking, of the country's record on each, "whether during the last more than five decades, have we tried to safeguard the public property and to abjure violence? Whether bandhs for attaining a political object or strike for redressing the grievances have not increased the violence?"

Why it matters. It shows the second use working. Article 51A did not create the power to publish a curriculum and could not have been enforced against anyone; it answered the objection that the curriculum was unconstitutional. It is also the passage that links this chapter to [Hartal and Bandh], where the Kerala High Court read the same duties against the organisers of a bandh.

Facts. Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, decided on 12 April 2012 by a Bench of three. The copy of this report the book holds carries no report reference, so none is printed. Private schools challenged the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, and in particular the obligation in section 12(1)(c) to admit twenty-five per cent of Class I from the weaker sections and disadvantaged groups.

Held. The Act is valid and binds unaided non-minority schools. On the duty, the majority reasoned that "unlike other fundamental rights, the right to education places a burden not only on the State, but also on the parent/guardian of every child", citing article 51A(k) at that point; that "the Constitution directs both burdens to achieve one end: the compulsory education of children free from the barriers of cost, parental obstruction or State inaction", and that "Articles 21A and 51A(k) balance the relative burdens on the parents and the State", so the right to education is "a reciprocal agreement between the State and the parents".

Why it matters. It is the strongest available answer to a student who says the duties are ornamental. A constitutional obligation on private schools was justified partly by reading a fundamental right alongside a fundamental duty. Nothing was enforced against a parent, and the duty still decided the shape of the right. The rest of that case is [Article 21A and the Right to Education Act].

The three Parts side by side

A worked example

A municipality makes a byelaw forbidding the felling of any tree over ten years old without permission, with a fine. Sameer, a plot owner, challenges it as an unreasonable restriction on his article 19(1)(g) trade in timber and on his use of his property.

Step one, can the municipality sue him on article 51A(g)? No. There is no procedure and no remedy in Part IVA, and a duty is not a cause of action.

Step two, then why cite it? Because the question is whether the restriction is reasonable under article 19(6). A restriction requiring a citizen to do what article 51A(g) says it is his duty to do, protect and improve the natural environment including forests and wild life, is very difficult to call unreasonable.

Step three, is there anything else on the same side? Yes, article 48A in Part IV, the State's own direction to protect and improve the environment. Duty and directive point the same way, and [Health and the Environment] shows the same pair inside article 21.

Step four, what would Sameer have to show to win? Not that the object is bad, but that this byelaw is disproportionate: that permission is refused arbitrarily, or that the fine is excessive. He must attack the means, because the end is written into the Constitution twice over.

Step five, and if he were not an Indian citizen? Article 51A would not apply to him at all, though article 48A and the reasoning in article 19(6) would be unaffected. Article 19 itself is confined to citizens in any event.

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the duties are unenforceable in every sense. They are unenforceable against a citizen as duties. Where Parliament enacts a law giving effect to one, that law is enforced in the ordinary way, and the duty then supports its constitutionality.

It does not mean there are ten duties. There are eleven. The eleventh, clause (k), was added by the Eighty-sixth Amendment 2002 and took effect on 1 April 2010, the same day as article 21A.

It does not mean article 51A is a source of power. It is not an entry in a legislative List. A law still needs competence under the Seventh Schedule; article 51A helps only on the question of reasonableness.

Quick revision

• Article 51A is the only article in Part IVA. Clauses (a) to (j) inserted by the Forty-second Amendment 1976, section 11, w.e.f. 3 January 1977, on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation. Clause (k) inserted by the Eighty-sixth Amendment 2002, section 4, w.e.f. 1 April 2010.
• It binds every citizen of India and nobody else. Part IV binds the State; article 21 protects every person.
• Eleven duties. Know clauses (e) harmony and the dignity of women, (g) environment and compassion for living creatures, (h) scientific temper, (i) public property and abjuring violence, and (k) the parent's duty on education.
• No remedy, no penalty, no article like article 37. Breach of a duty is not by itself unlawful.
• Three real uses: making a restriction reasonable, defending State action, and balancing a fundamental right.
• Aruna Roy (2002): the school curriculum was "in consonance with the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A", and the petition was dismissed.
• Society (2012): articles 21A and 51A(k) "balance the relative burdens on the parents and the State", making the right to education a reciprocal agreement.
• MU's 2019 paper, QP 81954, question 1(a), asked for "Fundamental Duties under Article 51". The duties are in article 51A. Say so in one sentence and answer on 51A. MU has also asked whether the fundamental rights and the fundamental duties are supplementary, in the 2022 question bank and at question 7(c) of QP 04798.

Test yourself

1. State the eleven duties in article 51A and identify the amendment that inserted each part of the article.

2. A question paper asks for "Fundamental Duties under Article 51". What is wrong with the question, and how would you open your answer?

3. Article 51A creates no remedy. Explain, with two authorities, how it nevertheless decides cases.

4. Compare the addressee, the enforceability and the practical use of Parts III, IV and IVA.

5. Why is clause (k) different in kind from clauses (a) to (j), and what has that difference allowed a court to do?

6. "The fundamental duties were an Emergency measure and should be read with suspicion." Evaluate.