On Wednesday(11th Sept), During the Supreme Court hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani stressed that enforcing fundamental duties requires ongoing legislative action and oversight. His comments came as the court reviewed a petition by lawyer Durga Dutt seeking clear laws to ensure compliance with constitutional duties.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: During Supreme Court hearing held on Wednesday(11th Sept), Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani emphasized that the enforcement of fundamental duties is a perpetual responsibility requiring continual legislative measures, programs, and monitoring mechanisms. Venkataramani’s remarks were made before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and R Mahadevan, as the court examined a plea filed by lawyer Durga Dutt. The petition sought the creation of clear laws and rules to guarantee compliance with the fundamental duties set forth in the Indian Constitution.
“Effectuation of fundamental duties is and will always be a continuing task, calling for duty-specific legislations, schemes, and supervision,”
-stated AG Venkataramani during his submission to the Supreme Court.
While acknowledging that the judiciary plays a vital role in aligning judicial processes with the fulfillment of fundamental duties, Venkataramani emphasized the constitutional principle that courts cannot compel the legislature to enact laws.
“The judiciary, and this court in particular, have consistently been proactive in taking steps to give effect to fundamental duties as much as possible.”
-Venkataramani wrote in his detailed note to the court.
According to Venkataramani, the courts have frequently played an essential role in integrating these duties into the interpretation of various constitutional and legal issues.
The AG added-
“In examining the importance of fundamental duties in various cases, this court has consistently noted that these duties serve as a valuable guide for interpreting constitutional and legal issues and impose a social obligation on all Indian citizens.”
The top court had requested AG Venkataramani’s assistance in this case in February 2022, issuing a notice to the Centre regarding the legislative framework for fundamental duties. The petition under discussion seeks judicial directions for both the Central and state governments to ensure compliance with these duties.
The plea submitted by Durga Dutt argues that non-compliance with fundamental duties directly impacts the exercise of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech), and 21 (right to life). The petitioner emphasized that while citizens enjoy fundamental rights, they must also be aware of and fulfill their duties, as these two aspects are interconnected.
The petition further suggested that public awareness campaigns and educational initiatives be implemented to encourage the observance of these duties.
ALSO READ: AG Venkataramani Urges Critics to Consider India’s History for Insightful Advice
“Fundamental duties are meant to constantly remind every citizen that, while the Constitution grants specific fundamental rights, it also requires them to observe basic norms of democratic conduct and behavior, as rights and duties are interrelated.”
-stated the plea.
In his written note, AG Venkataramani highlighted the role of the executive and the judiciary in promoting fundamental duties, noting that the mere inclusion of these duties in Article 51-A of the Constitution does not guarantee their enforcement. He pointed out that these duties are non-justiciable, meaning that their enforcement lies beyond the reach of the courts.
To address these concerns, Venkataramani referenced the establishment of a committee by the Centre in 1998 aimed at teaching and operationalizing fundamental duties among citizens through educational and cultural programs.
“Both the executive and the judiciary have long recognized that merely including these duties in Article 51-A of the Constitution is inadequate to ensure their implementation, especially given their non-justiciable status.”
-he added.
AG Venkataramani stressed that it is not the role of the judiciary to direct legislative action in these matters. He noted that courts should exercise caution in stepping in to fill perceived gaps in legislative policy, especially when such issues are actively being considered by the legislature.
“It is not the judiciary’s role to direct the legislature on how to enact laws, and courts should be cautious about intervening to address perceived gaps, especially when the matter is actively being considered by the legislature.”
-Venkataramani emphasized during the court proceedings.
He concluded by submitting that the court should take note of the various steps proposed by the executive to implement these duties and close the present proceedings, subject to any further directions the court may deem necessary.
“Therefore, it is submitted that this court may consider the various steps proposed or taken and, accordingly, close the present proceedings, subject to any directions the court deems appropriate.”
-he said.
The Supreme Court adjourned the case for further hearings in eight weeks, allowing time for the government to submit additional information on the measures being taken to ensure adherence to fundamental duties.