Justiciability and Enforcement of Fundamental Duties

At a Glance

• What it is Whether Fundamental Duties can be enforced by courts, and how they are supported by law and case law
• Position Non-justiciable; no legal sanction; Parliament may enforce by legislation
• Key committee Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens (1999)
• Cases Mohan Kumar Singhania (1991), Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012)
• Exam link UPSC Prelims, Polity: Fundamental Duties

Where Does It Fit?

This is the third topic of the category on Fundamental Duties. Having listed the duties, the question is whether they can be enforced. They cannot be enforced directly, but laws support several of them and courts use them to read other provisions.

Are Fundamental Duties Justiciable?

Like the Directive Principles, the Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable. The Constitution does not provide for their direct enforcement by the courts, and there is no legal sanction against their violation. Parliament, however, is free to enforce them by suitable legislation. The Swaran Singh Committee had recommended a penalty for non-compliance, but this was not accepted.

Laws That Support the Duties: The Verma Committee

The Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens (1999) identified existing legal provisions for the implementation of some duties.

Courts and the Fundamental Duties

The duties help the courts in examining the constitutional validity of a law. In the Mohan Kumar Singhania case (1991) the Supreme Court held that Article 51A can be used to interpret ambiguous laws in order to determine their constitutionality. In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) the Court observed that a common thread runs through Parts III, IV and IVA: one part enumerates the Fundamental Rights, the second declares the fundamental principles of governance, and the third lays down the Fundamental Duties. While interpreting any of these provisions, it is advisable to examine the scope and impact on all three aspects.

Criticism and Significance

The duties were criticised because the list is not exhaustive (it omits voting, paying taxes and family planning); some are vague, such as noble ideals, composite culture and scientific temper; they are a code of moral precepts because they are non-justiciable; their inclusion was superfluous; and placing them in Part IVA after Part IV reduced their value.

Yet they are significant. They remind citizens to be conscious of the duties they owe their country, society and fellow citizens; warn against anti-national activities like burning the National Flag or destroying public property; inspire discipline and commitment, so that citizens are active participants in realising national goals; and help courts. They are enforceable by law in the sense that Parliament can provide for penalty for failure to fulfil them.

Why Is This Topic Important?

• Enforceability question Justiciability of duties is a staple statement question
• Verma Committee Its list of supporting laws appears in Prelims
• Case law Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ramlila Maidan are linked to duties

What Came Next?

The next topic covers the 86th Amendment Act, 2002 and the eleventh Fundamental Duty.

Key People and Terms

• Non-justiciable Not enforceable by the courts
• Verma Committee The 1999 committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens
• Mohan Kumar Singhania case 1991 case on using Article 51A to interpret laws
• Moral precept A rule of conduct without legal sanction
• Exhaustive Covering all important duties

Exam Corner

Mains Angle

Questions on this topic usually ask about the legal force of the duties. Use these points to add depth.

• No direct enforcement The duties are moral and civic precepts
• Statutory support Several Acts give effect to individual duties
• Judicial use Courts use Article 51A to interpret ambiguous laws
• Debate Critics call them vague, superfluous or misplaced