FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES IN THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION
The concept of fundamental duties in the Indian Constitution plays a
crucial role in shaping the moral and civic responsibility of its citizens.
Introduced through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, these duties were not
originally part of the Constitution but became essential as India’s
political and social environment evolved. The incorporation of
fundamental duties was largely influenced by the desire to foster a sense
of responsibility among citizens and to balance the rights granted by the
Constitution. Both Dr. Durga Das Basu’s Introduction to the Constitution
of India and the discussions that led to the amendment—highlighted in
the 1976 deliberations of the Swaran Singh Committee—offer valuable
insights into the importance, purpose, and challenges of these duties.
The decision to include fundamental duties was a response to the
growing realization that the rights enshrined in the Constitution needed
to be complemented by corresponding responsibilities. During the 1976
discussions, thinkers like VKRV Rao, alongside the Swaran Singh
Committee, emphasized the role of duties in maintaining national
integrity and promoting responsible citizenship. Dr. Basu, in his own
analysis, saw fundamental duties as a moral framework necessary for
sustaining democracy and national unity. They were aimed at fostering an
ethic of citizenship in which citizens were not merely entitled to rights
but also had obligations toward the state, society, and each other.
The fundamental duties outlined in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution
include:
1. To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions,
the National Flag, and the National Anthem.
2. To cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired the national
struggle for freedom.
3. To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
4. To defend the country and render national service when called
upon to do so.
5. To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among
all people of India, transcending religious, linguistic, and regional
or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the
dignity of women.
6. To value and preserve the rich heritage of the country’s composite
culture.

1
 7. To protect and improve the natural environment, including forests,
lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion for living
creatures.
8. To develop a scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry
and reform.
9. To safeguard public property and to abjure violence.
10. To strive toward excellence in all spheres of individual and
collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher
levels of endeavor and achievement.
11. To provide opportunities for education to one’s child or ward
between the ages of six and fourteen years (added by the 86th
Amendment in 2002).
These duties are essentially moral obligations, aimed at fostering a sense
of national responsibility. Unlike fundamental rights, they are non-
justiciable, meaning that citizens cannot be legally compelled to follow
them, nor can they approach the courts for their enforcement. Dr. Basu
emphasizes that while these duties are not justiciable, their importance
lies in their potential to foster a sense of moral responsibility among the
people.
One of the significant themes in Dr. Basu’s and Rao’s discussions is the
non-enforceable nature of these duties. Dr. Basu points out that their
primary role is to serve as a moral compass rather than a legal one. This
approach aligns with the Swaran Singh Committee’s proposal, which
initially suggested penalizing citizens for failing to observe these duties,
but this was ultimately left out due to concerns about practicality and
enforcement. Rao and other committee members acknowledged that
while it is vital for citizens to uphold these duties, enforcing them
through legal means would be complex and could lead to unintended
consequences. They concluded that these duties should inspire voluntary
compliance rather than be subject to legal penalties.
The duties, as laid out in the Constitution, were also reflective of the
socio-political context of the time. India in the 1970s was grappling with
a variety of issues, including communal tensions, environmental
degradation, and social inequalities. The inclusion of duties such as
protecting the environment, renouncing practices derogatory to the
dignity of women, and promoting harmony across diverse communities
was a direct response to these challenges. Both Dr. Basu and the
members of the Swaran Singh Committee recognized that in a diverse
and pluralistic society like India, the role of citizens in upholding the
nation’s unity and integrity could not be overstated. Duties that
emphasized respect for national symbols and the nation’s composite
culture were seen as essential for maintaining social cohesion.

2
However, one of the challenges in the implementation of fundamental
duties, as noted by both Basu and Rao, is their broad and sometimes
vague nature. Duties such as "promoting harmony" or "striving toward
excellence" are open to interpretation and lack clear guidelines for how
citizens should fulfill them. This vagueness, while allowing for flexibility,
also creates ambiguity in their practical application. Dr. Basu, while
recognizing the educative value of these duties, acknowledges the
difficulty in measuring their observance. Rao echoes this sentiment,
suggesting that without more precise definitions, it becomes challenging
to assess whether citizens are truly fulfilling their constitutional duties.
Moreover, the relationship between fundamental duties and other parts
of the Constitution, particularly fundamental rights and Directive
Principles of State Policy, is another critical issue. Dr. Basu points out
that rights and duties are inherently interconnected—while citizens are
entitled to certain rights, these rights come with responsibilities. The
Swaran Singh Committee emphasized the need for a balance between
rights and duties, suggesting that duties should complement the rights
guaranteed to citizens. Rao, in particular, was concerned with the
potential conflict between the exercise of individual rights and the
observance of duties. He proposed that while rights are essential for
protecting individual freedoms, they should not come at the expense of
the nation’s unity or social justice. This balance is crucial for the proper
functioning of a democratic society.
In addition to their educative role, fundamental duties also serve to guide
the state in its efforts to foster national development. For instance, the
duty to protect the environment aligns with the state’s responsibility, as
outlined in the Directive Principles, to safeguard the country’s natural
resources for future generations. Similarly, the duty to promote a
scientific temper and spirit of inquiry complements the state’s goal of
encouraging innovation and scientific progress. Dr. Basu suggests that
while these duties are aimed primarily at individuals, they also have
broader implications for state policy, particularly in areas such as
education, environmental protection, and social justice.
One of the criticisms of fundamental duties, as discussed in the 1976
debates and by Dr. Basu, is the lack of public awareness and engagement
with these obligations. While the Constitution clearly outlines these
duties, many citizens remain unaware of their existence or significance.
This lack of awareness undermines the effectiveness of fundamental
duties in promoting responsible citizenship. Dr. Basu argues that
education plays a crucial role in ensuring that citizens understand and
internalize their constitutional duties. Schools and universities, as well as
the media, should play a more active role in disseminating information
about fundamental duties and fostering a culture of civic responsibility.

3
The importance of voluntary compliance with fundamental duties is
another theme that emerges in both Basu’s and Rao’s discussions. While
these duties are non-justiciable, their success depends on the willingness
of citizens to embrace them voluntarily. Rao emphasizes that professional
bodies, voluntary organizations, and civil society play a crucial role in
promoting the observance of these duties. Dr. Basu concurs, suggesting
that social and cultural factors, rather than legal enforcement, are the
most effective means of ensuring that citizens uphold their duties. This
reliance on voluntary compliance reflects the moral and educative nature
of fundamental duties, which are intended to inspire citizens to
contribute positively to the nation’s development and well-being.
In conclusion, fundamental duties in India are a crucial component of the
constitutional framework, designed to foster a sense of moral and civic
responsibility among citizens. While they are not legally enforceable,
their significance lies in their potential to inspire voluntary compliance
and promote responsible citizenship. Both Dr. Durga Das Basu and the
1976 deliberations highlight the importance of these duties in
maintaining national unity, promoting social harmony, and ensuring the
nation’s development. However, challenges remain, particularly in terms
of public awareness, the broad and vague nature of certain duties, and
the difficulty in measuring their observance. Ultimately, the success of
fundamental duties depends on the willingness of citizens to embrace
them and the role of education and civil society in promoting a culture of
responsibility.

REFERENCES:
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23001750
 Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties,
Introduction to the Constitution of India – Dr. Durga Das
Basu
 https://knowindia.india.gov.in/profile/fundamental-duties.php