The Fundamental Duties

Clause (k). Added in 2002 by the same amendment that inserted article 21A and rewrote article 45, so that the child has a right, the State has an obligation and the parent has a duty, all inserted at once. It is the tidiest example in the Constitution of a right and a duty being drafted together.

Enforceability, which is the question

Against a citizen, directly: no. Article 51A creates no offence and provides no penalty. A citizen who fails to develop a scientific temper commits no wrong known to law.

Where a statute gives a duty force: yes, through the statute. Duties in clauses (a), (c), (g) and (i) correspond to obligations under statutes such as the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971, the environmental legislation and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984. What is enforced there is the statute, and article 51A supplies the constitutional purpose that supports it.

As an aid to construction: yes, and this is the important use. Where a fundamental right is being read, or where a restriction on one is being tested for reasonableness, article 51A is a legitimate consideration. A restriction that promotes a fundamental duty is more readily held reasonable.

As support for the validity of a law: yes. A statute enacted to give effect to a fundamental duty is a statute with a constitutional object, and that has weight when it is challenged.

And as a guide to State policy: in practice, yes. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India, (2002) 7 SCC 368, the National Curriculum Framework was upheld against a challenge that it introduced religious instruction contrary to article 28, and the reasoning treated the study of religions for the purpose of value education as consistent with the constitutional scheme. Article 51A(e) and (f) are part of the background against which such a scheme is judged. The case is worked in the religion topic.

The comparison students are asked for

The one line to remember about all three. Rights are claims a citizen has against the State, directives are goals the State owes the citizen, and duties are what the citizen owes back. The Constitution's authors added the third late, and the addition is why the Forty-second Amendment is remembered for something other than the Emergency.

A worked example

A municipal corporation prohibits the immersion of idols painted with lead-based paint in a lake, and the prohibition is challenged as violating article 25.

The right. Freedom to practise religion under article 25(1), subject to public order, morality and health.

The duty. Article 51A(g), to protect and improve the natural environment including lakes.

The directive. Article 48A, the State's duty to protect and improve the environment.

How they combine. The prohibition is a restriction on a religious practice, so the court asks whether it is covered by the health limitation in article 25(1) and whether the practice restricted is an essential religious practice at all. Article 48A and article 51A(g) support the reasonableness of the restriction; they do not by themselves authorise it. That is exactly the weight a fundamental duty carries: real, and never decisive on its own.

What this does NOT mean

It does not mean the duties are decorative. They are used in reasoning often enough that no answer can dismiss them.

It does not mean a court can order a citizen to perform one. Directions have been given to States to educate citizens about the duties; the duty itself remains without a sanction.

And it does not mean the list is complete or uncontroversial. Clause (b), the ideals which inspired the national struggle, and clause (j), striving towards excellence, are not the kind of thing a legal order can state operatively at all, and they are the standing example of the criticism that Part IVA is exhortation.

Quick revision

Part IVA, article 51A, inserted by the Forty-second Amendment 1976 on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation; clause (k) added by the Eighty-sixth Amendment 2002 alongside article 21A and the new article 45. Eleven duties, addressed to the citizen. No sanction, so not directly enforceable. Four real effects: enforcement through a statute that independently creates the obligation; aid in construing a fundamental right; a factor in the reasonableness of a restriction; and support for the validity of a law made to give a duty effect. The three clauses this paper uses are (e), practices derogatory to the dignity of women, (g), the environment, and (k), education.

Test yourself

1. When and how were the fundamental duties inserted, and what was added later? By the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976, inserting Part IVA and article 51A on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. Clause (k), the parent's duty to provide opportunities for education between six and fourteen, was added by the Eighty-sixth Amendment in 2002.

2. Are the fundamental duties enforceable? Not directly: article 51A creates no offence and provides no penalty, and no citizen can be punished for breaching a duty as such. They are enforceable indirectly through statutes that independently create the obligation.

3. Give the three indirect legal effects of article 51A. It supports the constitutional object of a statute that gives a duty force; it is a legitimate aid in construing a fundamental right; and it is a factor in judging whether a restriction on a fundamental right is reasonable.

4. Which fundamental duty was inserted with article 21A, and why does that matter? Clause (k), the parent's or guardian's duty to provide opportunities for education to a child between six and fourteen, inserted by the same Eighty-sixth Amendment that made article 21A a fundamental right and substituted article 45. It matters because the right of the child, the obligation of the State and the duty of the parent were drafted as one scheme.

5. State the standing criticism of Part IVA. That several clauses are exhortation rather than law. To cherish the noble ideals of the national struggle, or to strive towards excellence so that the nation rises to higher levels of endeavour, cannot be stated as an operative legal obligation, and their presence in a constitution invites the charge that the whole Part is rhetorical.