Every right has a corresponding duty for a citizen

There was a time when some parts of the Constitution of India were described as “pious wishes” not having teeth enough to be enforceable. Initially, this category included the “Directives Principles of State Policy” in Part IV of the Constitution, but the march of constitutionalism has brought them into play in an effective manner and the projection is towards their greater involvement in the interpretation of the Fundamental Rights.

While there were fundamental rights of citizens and some non-citizens specifically enshrined in the Constitution, “Fundamental Duties” were not a part of the original Constitution. This part has been added by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 in accordance with the recommendations of the Swaran Singh Committee. It brings our Constitution in line with Article 29(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitutions of Japan, China, USSR.

In one respect, the legal utility of the Fundamental Duties is similar to that of the Directives as they stood in the Constitution of 1949. While the Directives were addressed to the State, so are the Duties addressed to the citizen. The citizen is expected to be his own monitor while exercising and enforcing his fundamental rights, remembering that he owes the duties specified in Article 51A to the State and that if he does not care for the duties he should not deserve the rights.

For instance, a person who burns the Constitution cannot assert that the meeting or assembly at which it was burnt by way of demonstration against the Government should be protected by the freedom of expression or assembly guaranteed by Article 19. Of course, the “duty” as such is not legally enforceable in courts; but if the State makes a law to prohibit any act in violation of any of the duties, courts would uphold that as a reasonable restriction on the relevant fundamental right just as they did uphold any law implementing a Directive Principle.

It would be useful to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court made prior to the insertion of Article 51A: “It is a fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties. The provisions in Part IV enable the Legislatures to impose various duties on the citizens. The mandate of our Constitution is to build a welfare society and that object may be achieved to the extent the directive Principles are implemented by legislation.”

If so, in determining the constitutionality of such laws, when enacted, the court should have regard to the Directives as well as the Duties along with the Rights. Courts may also look at the Duties while interpreting equivocal statutes which admit of two constructions and also uphold the constitutionality of a statute, the object of which is in consonance with a provision in Art. 51A. However, the Duties are not enforceable; and if the State seeks to promote any Duty, e.g., that under Cl. (j), that can be done only through methods in consonance with the Constitution.

Since the Duties are not addressed to the State, a citizen cannot claim that he must be properly equipped by the State so that he may perform his Duties. But the Supreme Court has issued directions to the States, having regard to Art. 51A(g). Duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice, people’s wish as manifested through Art.51A, can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for moulding the relief by courts. Constitutional enactment of Duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a “tool to tab, even a taboo”, on State action drifting away from constitutional values.

In view of the Duties imposed on the citizens, the Supreme Court has held that it is a duty of the Central Government to take a number of steps to make this provision effective and directed the Government to ask all educational institutions to give weekly lessons in the first ten classes relating to protection and improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, to get textbooks written for this  purpose and to distribute them free, to introduce short-term courses for training teachers of this subject and not only the Central Government but the State Governments and local authorities to introduce cleanliness weeks when all citizens, including members of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, should render free personal service to keep their local areas free from pollution of land, water and air. By giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit of Arts. 48 and 48A is honoured as a fundamental duty. The Parliament availed the opportunity provided by the Constitution (42nd Amendments) Act, 1976 to improve the manifestation of the objects in Arts. 48 and 48A. While Art.48A speaks of “environment”, Art. 51A(g) employs the expression “the natural environment” and includes therein “forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife”. While Art.48 provides for “cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”, Art. 51A(g) enjoins it as a fundamental duty of every citizen  “to have compassion for living creatures”. Art. 51A(g) and (h) are the magna carta of animal rights. Particular emphasis has been made to the expression “humanism” which has a number of meanings but increasingly designates as an inclusive sensibility for our species. Humanism also means to understand benevolence, compassion, mercy, etc. The objectives under Arts. 41, 51A(h) and (j) can be achieved or ensured only by means of education. Education is a national wealth which must be distributed equally and widely in the interest of creating an egalitarian society to enable the country to rise high and face global competition.

The Fundamental Duties are not made enforceable by a writ of court as the Fundamental Rights are, but it cannot be lost sight of that “duties” in Part IVA, Art.51 are prefixed by the same word “fundamental” which was prefixed by the fathers of the Constitution to “rights” in Part III. Every citizen is fundamentally obligated to develop a scientific temper and humanism. He is duty-bound to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievements. The State is all citizens placed together; and hence, though Art.51A does not expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that every citizen’s duty is the collective duty of the State. Any reservation, apart from being sustainable on the constitutional anvil, must also be reasonable to be permissible. In assessing the reasonability, a factor to be taken into consideration would be whether the character and quantum of reservation would stall or accelerate achieving the ultimate goal of excellence enabling the nation to constantly rise to higher levels.

It was during the “Emergency” that the “Fundamental Duties” chapter was inserted into the Constitution in 1976. This is one of the main constructive amendments. It is now for the judiciary to blend the different rights and duties so that we evolve into a balanced and civilised society. This will also make the citizens realise that every right has a corresponding duty; and the duty ought to have a corresponding right. These checks and balances shall enable us to emerge with a more effective and meaningful form of democracy. This aspect has been neglected and needs to be pursued with vigour. This calls for the involvement of all sections of our society.

(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com )