Fundamental Duties: A Critical Lens

An insightful exploration into the perceived shortcomings and ongoing debates surrounding the Fundamental Duties enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Explore Criticisms

Introduction to the Critique

While the incorporation of Fundamental Duties into the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, was intended to foster a sense of civic responsibility and national consciousness among citizens, this chapter (Part IVA, Article 51A) has not been immune to criticism. Critics have pointed out several perceived shortcomings, including the non-exhaustive nature of the list of duties, the vagueness and ambiguity of some of the terms used, their non-justiciable character which allegedly renders them mere moral precepts, the argument that many duties are inherently performed by responsible citizens anyway, and their placement in the Constitution which some feel diminishes their significance.

Understanding these criticisms is essential for a balanced evaluation of the role and effectiveness of Fundamental Duties.

Source: Broad understanding synthesized from Laxmikanth, 'Indian Polity'; D.D. Basu, 'Introduction to the Constitution of India'; Criticisms voiced by constitutional commentators and members of Parliament during debates.

Core Criticisms Explored

Not Exhaustive

The list does not cover other important duties like casting vote, paying taxes, or family planning. Some of these were recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee but not included.

Examples of Omitted Duties: Casting Vote, Paying Taxes (specifically recommended by Swaran Singh Committee but rejected), Family Planning.

Argument of Critics: The selective inclusion makes the list appear incomplete, weakening the overall framework of citizen responsibilities.

Vague & Ambiguous

Some duties are difficult to understand and interpret due to their abstract phrasing (e.g., 'noble ideals', 'composite culture', 'scientific temper').

Examples: "Noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom" (Art 51A(b)), "Rich heritage of our composite culture" (Art 51A(f)), "Scientific temper, humanism..." (Art 51A(h)).

Argument of Critics: Such vagueness makes it difficult to measure compliance or non-compliance and reduces practical utility.

Non-Justiciable Nature

Critics call them a "code of moral precepts" with no real teeth, as they are not directly enforceable by courts and lack specific penalties in the Constitution for violation.

Argument of Critics: Without legal sanction, there is no compulsion for citizens to adhere, making them largely symbolic and ineffective in practice.

Counter-Argument: They hold moral and educative value, aid courts in interpretation, and Parliament can still make laws to enforce certain aspects.

Superfluous

Many duties are inherent and would be performed by responsible citizens even if not codified, suggesting their inclusion was unnecessary.

Examples: Respecting the Constitution/National Flag, upholding national unity, safeguarding public property – often seen as natural acts of patriotism.

Argument of Critics: Their inclusion might suggest a lack of faith in the citizens' innate sense of responsibility.

Placement Issue

Critics argue their significance is reduced by not placing them after Part III (Fundamental Rights), making them appear as an afterthought or less important.

Placement: Part IVA, after Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy).

Argument of Critics: If correlative to FRs, they should be immediately after them to highlight the relationship.

Notes & Analytical Insights

  • Not Exhaustive: Omits key duties like voting, paying taxes, family planning (some suggested by Swaran Singh Com. but not included).
  • Vague & Ambiguous: Terms like "noble ideals," "composite culture," "scientific temper" are difficult to interpret clearly.
  • Non-Justiciable: Called "code of moral precepts," "pious wishes"; no direct legal sanction in Constitution for violation.
  • Superfluous: Many duties are inherent for responsible citizens, codification seen as unnecessary by some.
  • Placement as Appendage (Part IVA after Part IV): Critics argue this reduces their significance compared to FRs (Part III).

Non-Exhaustive List – A Missed Opportunity?

The omission of duties like voting or paying taxes, which are tangible and directly contribute to democratic functioning and state resources, is a significant point of criticism. However, the government likely avoided including legally enforceable obligations within a non-justiciable framework.

Vagueness – Intentional Flexibility or Hindrance?

While vagueness is criticized, it can also be argued that it provides flexibility for interpretation. However, for duties intended to guide citizen conduct, a degree of clarity is desirable. This vagueness also makes any potential future move towards enforceability problematic.

Impact of Non-Justiciability on Citizen Psyche:

The non-justiciable nature might lead to a perception among some citizens that FDs are not as "serious" or "important" as FRs. However, the aim was perhaps more towards persuasion and education rather than coercion.

Superfluity vs. Declaratory Value:

The argument of superfluity overlooks the declaratory and educative role of constitutional provisions. In a diverse country, explicitly stating these duties provides a common national reference point for expected citizen behavior.

Placement and Perceived Importance:

While sequential placement can have symbolic implications, the substantive importance of FDs is derived from their content. Their role as a complement to FRs and DPSPs, forming a triad of constitutional obligations and aspirations, is more significant than their precise location.

Overall Assessment of Criticisms:

The criticisms highlight limitations, but many also point to the deliberate choice of the enactors to make them primarily moral and educative guides. Their ultimate value lies in their potential to shape a responsible citizenry over time through sustained promotion and internalization.

  • Calls for Enforcement/Greater Emphasis: Public discourse often includes calls for greater emphasis on FDs, sometimes for making certain duties legally enforceable, especially in response to incidents of public disorder or civic negligence.
  • Supreme Court Observations: The SC has, in various contexts (e.g., environmental protection), referred to FDs to underscore citizen responsibilities. In 2023, the SC orally remarked on the importance of FDs being taught.
  • Government Campaigns: Government campaigns promoting civic responsibility often implicitly or explicitly draw upon the spirit of Fundamental Duties.

UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims MCQ 1

Which of the following is NOT a common criticism leveled against the Fundamental Duties enshrined in the Indian Constitution?

  • (a) They are non-justiciable and lack legal sanction for violation.
  • (b) The list is not exhaustive and omits important duties like paying taxes.
  • (c) Some duties are vague and difficult for the common person to understand.
  • (d) They were part of the original Constitution and have not been updated since.

Answer: (d)

Hint/Explanation: FDs were NOT part of the original Constitution (added by 42nd Am., 1976) and have been updated (11th duty by 86th Am., 2002). (a), (b), and (c) are common criticisms.

Prelims MCQ 2

The Swaran Singh Committee, which recommended the inclusion of Fundamental Duties, also suggested which of the following that was NOT accepted by the government?

  • (a) Duty to respect the National Flag and National Anthem.
  • (b) Duty to pay taxes according to law.
  • (c) Duty to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.
  • (d) Duty to develop scientific temper.

Answer: (b)

Hint/Explanation: The Swaran Singh Committee recommended including the duty to pay taxes, but it was not incorporated into Article 51A. Duties similar to (a), (c), and (d) were included.

1. What are the major criticisms against the Fundamental Duties provided in Part IVA of the Indian Constitution? Do these criticisms render them insignificant? Give your reasoned opinion. (Critical Evaluation)

Direction/Value Points:
  • Introduction: Briefly introduce FDs and mention they face criticisms.
  • Major Criticisms (Detail each as in 8.5.1 to 8.5.5): Non-Exhaustive, Vague and Ambiguous, Non-Justiciable, Superfluous, Placement.
  • Do Criticisms Render them Insignificant? (Counter-arguments / Significance): Moral and educative value, Reminder of obligations, Aid in interpretation, Basis for parliamentary laws, Promote national goals.
  • Reasoned Opinion: Acknowledge validity of some criticisms. Conclude that despite these, FDs hold significant persuasive and guiding value, aiming to shape national character.

2. "The Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution are often described as a 'code of moral precepts' lacking enforceability." While this is true to an extent, analyze how their inclusion, despite criticisms, contributes to the larger constitutional vision of a responsible and participatory democracy.

Direction/Value Points:
  • Introduction: Acknowledge the "moral precepts" critique.
  • Truth in the Critique: Yes, non-justiciable, no direct legal penalties.
  • Contribution to Responsible & Participatory Democracy (Despite Criticisms): Fostering Civic Responsibility, Promoting National Unity & Harmony, Encouraging Rational & Reformist Outlook, Environmental Consciousness, Setting Norms for Public Life, Indirect Legal Relevance, Educational Tool.
  • Conclusion: FDs contribute to a citizenry conscious of its responsibilities, strengthening participatory democracy. They reflect a constitutional vision where rights and duties are interwoven.

Original Questions

Original MCQ 1

A common criticism that the list of Fundamental Duties in Article 51A is "not exhaustive" primarily refers to the omission of duties such as:

  1. Paying taxes according to law.
  2. Casting vote in elections.
  3. Promoting family planning.
  4. Upholding and protecting the sovereignty of India.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

  • (a) 1 and 2 only
  • (b) 1, 2 and 3 only
  • (c) 4 only
  • (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

Answer: (b)

Explanation: Paying taxes, casting vote, and promoting family planning are often cited as important duties missing from the list. Upholding sovereignty (4) IS a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A(c).

Original MCQ 2

The criticism that Fundamental Duties are "superfluous" implies that:

  • (a) They are too difficult for the common citizen to understand and follow.
  • (b) They are non-justiciable and therefore have no practical value.
  • (c) Many of the listed duties would be performed by responsible citizens even without their codification in the Constitution.
  • (d) They are merely an appendage to Part IV of the Constitution and lack independent significance.

Answer: (c)

Explanation: The criticism of "superfluity" suggests that certain duties are so inherent to good citizenship (like respecting national symbols or public property) that their explicit mention in the Constitution was unnecessary, as conscientious citizens would observe them anyway.

"The chapter on Fundamental Duties has been criticized as a set of vague moral exhortations with no real sanction." Do you agree with this assessment? Give a reasoned argument for or against the proposition of making Fundamental Duties legally enforceable.

Key Points/Structure for Answering:
  • Introduction: Acknowledge the criticism.
  • Analyzing "Vague Moral Exhortations with No Real Sanction": Discuss vagueness (examples), non-justiciability, lack of direct sanction.
  • Countering the "No Real Sanction/Value" Argument: Indirect legal backing (laws by Parliament), interpretative aid for courts, moral/educative value, political/social sanctions.
  • Arguments For Making FDs Legally Enforceable: Greater compliance, stronger civic discipline, give "teeth".
  • Arguments Against Making FDs Legally Enforceable: Vagueness (difficulty in defining non-compliance), potential for misuse, coercion vs. persuasion, overburdening judiciary.
  • Conclusion: While criticism has basis, FDs have significant value. Blanket enforceability could be counterproductive. Balanced approach: education + selective enforcement.