Serve as a reminder: These duties remind citizens that while enjoying rights, they should also be conscious of their duties towards country, nation and their fellow citizens.

• Positive transformation of the Nation: Many nations across the world have transformed from developing/underdeveloped nations into developed economies by emphasising on the principles of “responsible citizenship”.  Some examples include:
  The Citizens’ Almanac, issued by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, details the responsibilities of its citizens. Singapore’s growth story has been fuelled by its emphasis on the relentless pursuit of duties by its citizens.
• Inclusion of Citizens: They create a feeling of inspiration among the citizens as it shows that they are no mere spectators but are active participants in the realisation of national goals. These duties promote a sense of discipline and commitment among citizens by making them conscious of their social and civic responsibilities. 
• Used in legal interpretation:  They help the courts in examining and determining the constitutional validity of a law. In 1992, the Supreme Court decided that when assessing the constitutionality of a law, if a court determines that the law aims to fulfill a fundamental duty, it can regard that law as ‘reasonable’ in connection with Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 19 (six freedoms), thereby protecting the law from being deemed unconstitutional..
• Enforceable by law: These duties serve as a warning against the anti-national and anti-social activities like burning the national flag, destroying public property etc. In case these are not followed Parliament by law can provide for imposition of appropriate penalty or punishment for failure to follow any of the fundamental duties. 
• Rooted in Indian Culture: These duties represent the social concepts that have grown through time, tradition and usage. If one closely scrutinises Article 51A, they will realise that fundamental duties refer to a number of Indian values such as tolerance, peace and communal harmony. 

Criticisms of Fundamental Duties

Article 51-A of the Constitution has attracted certain criticism due to following reasons:

• Superfluous nature: The fundamental duties have been described as superfluous because these duties would be performed by the people even if they were not incorporated in the Constitution. 
• Non – Justiciable nature: Due to their non-justiciable nature they have been described by critics as moral percepts. There exists no penalty or punishment for the non-performance of the duties. 
• Appendage to Part IV: Some critics pointed out that the incorporation of fundamental duties as part IV-A has reduced their value and significance. They should have been added after the chapter on fundamental rights to bring them at par with it.
• Vague and ambiguous: These duties are also criticised for being vague and ambiguous. Terms like ‘noble ideals’, ‘scientific temper’ etc. are difficult to comprehend and can be interpreted by different individuals in different ways. Hence, it will be difficult for a common man to even understand his duties. 
• Non – exhaustive list: These duties are criticised for not being comprehensive. This means that they are not all-inclusive, leaving behind many important matters like the duty to pay taxes or casting vote in an election etc. 

Despite various criticisms casted on it, Fundamental Duties are of paramount importance. These duties embody the concept of ‘responsible citizenship’- all the responsibilities and duties that citizens of a nation should exercise and respect. 

Key Judgments Highlighting the Role of Fundamental Duties in Indian Law

In various judgments the courts have taken reference from Fundamental duties for determining constitutional validity of a law or while giving directions to the government.

Balaji Raghavan v Union of India, 1995

The constitutional legitimacy of national awards (Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan) was affirmed in this ruling. The ruling stated that the granting of these awards does not violate the principles of equality, as merit is acknowledged by these honors. Article 51A(j) imposes an obligation on citizens to pursue excellence in all endeavors. This award system motivates citizens and acknowledges their outstanding performance in fulfilling these responsibilities.

M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath case, 2000

The court invalidated the lease issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the hotel developers due to the construction taking place in an ecologically fragile area. Subsequently, in the M.C. Mehta II (2000) case, the hotel developers were penalized for causing environmental harm. While delivering the ruling, the court highlighted that Article 51A(g) places a responsibility on every citizen to safeguard and enhance the natural environment and to show kindness towards living beings. The court also established that there is a connection among Fundamental Rights, duties, and Directive Principles. The court determined that the responsibility under Article 51A(g) must be interpreted alongside Article 48A of the constitution, which requires the State to protect the environment, and Article 21, which asserts that the right to a clean environment is vital for living a dignified life. 

Javed vs State of Haryana, 2003

In this ruling, the court upheld the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1995, which disqualified individuals with more than two children from holding specific positions within the Haryana Panchayat. While endorsing the act, the court emphasized that Fundamental Rights should not be interpreted in isolation but rather alongside the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties. The Fundamental Duties encapsulate the idea of sustainable development, indicating that population growth must be controlled. 

Aruna Roy vs Union of India, 2002

In this situation, the legality of the National Curriculum Framework for School Education was contested on the basis that it violated Article 28 of the constitution. The curriculum aimed to provide education on value development concerning the fundamentals of all religions. The court concluded that the content of the NCFSE is in line with Article 51A(e), which states the promotion of harmony and a sense of brotherhood among all Indian people, transcending differences in religion, language, or region, and rejecting practices that demean women. Therefore, the court ruled that such education does not violate Article 28, as no religious instruction is being provided, nor does it contradict secular principles.

Re Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, 2012

The court took suo motu cognizance of the eviction of individuals from Ramlila grounds in New Delhi in February 2011, deeming the eviction notice unreasonable. In delivering the judgment, the court referred to the Fundamental Duties. It asserted that citizens bear the Fundamental Duty to comply with lawful orders and cooperate fully in maintaining public order and peace. However, the court pointed out that the organizers should have requested the public to vacate the grounds prior to the police’s arrival, as they were obligated by their Fundamental Duty to protect public property and avoid violence. 

Verma Committee Observations

The Justice J.S. Verma Committee was established in 1999 to explore the operational aspects of the Fundamental Duties of Indian citizens. The committee made recommendations regarding the dissemination of information about Fundamental Duties to the public. It also discussed methods for teaching these duties in schools and promoting awareness about them within educational institutions. Additionally, the Verma Committee advocated for the inclusion of the duty to vote in elections and actively engage in the democratic process as a Fundamental Duty. In the case of Shri Ranganath Mishra v Union of India, 2000, the Supreme Court instructed the Central Government to execute the recommendations made by the Justice J.S. Verma Committee. 

The Committee also identified a few existing legal provisions which paved the way for the execution of fundamental duties:

• Representation of People Act,1951: As per this act, any member of the Indian Parliament or State Legislatures may have their membership revoked if they are found to be engaged in corrupt practices.
• Unlawful Activities Protection Act, 1967: This act mandates the prohibition of sectarian organizations within the country to foster a peaceful and stable society.
• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Individuals who promote or engage in untouchability must be penalized according to this act. 
• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972: The purpose of this act is to safeguard and conserve rare and endangered animals, birds, and plants, and it strictly forbids the illegal trade of wildlife.
• Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: This act firmly prohibits any form of disrespect or insult toward the national anthem, flag, and the constitution.
• Forest Conservation Act, 1980: The act prohibits the destruction of natural forests, addressing the issue of their degradation, and it also controls the use of these forests for human activities.