This article was written by Sambit Rath and further updated by Jyotika Saroha. In this article, the author aims to differentiate between fundamental rights and fundamental duties. It elaborates on the concepts of fundamental rights and fundamental duties. It mainly deals with the difference between these two concepts.

Introduction

The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of this country. It is the lengthiest written Constitution amongst all the countries in the world. It contains within it the fundamental rights, duties, directive principles of state policy, and duties to be performed by the government. It was drafted by the Constituent Assembly chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in 1947, and it came into force on 26th January 1950. Since then, there have been various amendments to the Constitution, among which one such amendment was the addition of Part IVA through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. 

Fundamental rights are those basic rights that the citizens of a country enjoy and that have been provided to them within the Indian Constitution. Whereas, fundamental duties are the moral and ethical principles that impose a duty upon the citizens to fulfil their obligations towards the growth and development of their country. The existence of two “fundamentals” raises the question as to what is the difference between the two? Are both of them legally enforceable? What is the need for either of the two? In this article, we’ll endeavour to answer these and a few other questions.

What are Fundamental Rights

As the name suggests, fundamental means something that is necessary in order for something else to function. Thus, fundamental rights are basic human rights that are available to the citizens of India irrespective of place of birth, religion, or gender. They are the foundation of any democracy, as they enable the people living in a democratic society to achieve their potential without fear of suppression. These rights ensure individual liberty. These rights are the privileges granted to the citizens of a country, and they are enforceable in a court of law. They provide protection to their citizens and empower them with certain rights and freedoms. They are justiciable in nature, and in India, there are six fundamental rights provided in Part III of the Indian Constitution, from Article 14 to Article 35. 

The Indian Constitution guarantees and protects these fundamental rights. Let’s look at each one of these rights:

• Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
• Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
• Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
• Culture and Educational Rights (Articles 29 -30)
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Articles 32)

Right to Equality (Articles 14-18 of the Indian Constitution)

Article 14 : Equality before the law

This Article states that all individuals are equal in the eyes of the law and are treated equally. It also states that individuals enjoy equal protection of the law. This means that in similar situations, individuals will be treated in the same manner. Article 14 lays down two important concepts: ‘equality before law’ and ‘equal protection of laws’. 

Equality before law

The concept of ‘equality before law’ came from Britain during the 16th century and was propounded by renowned jurist A.V. Dicey. It states that no one is above the law, and no one shall be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of the law. It further provides that every man shall be subject to the ordinary laws of the country. But the right guaranteed under Article 14 is not absolute, and certain restrictions are imposed upon it. It includes the privileges and immunities given to the President of India or to the Governor of a State under Article 361 of the Constitution. According to clause (2) of Article 361, no criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the President of India or the Governor of a State. Also, during the period of emergency, the right guaranteed under this Article may be suspended when the proclamation is in operation.  

Equal protection of laws

The concept of ‘equal protection of laws’ is taken from the Constitution of America. It implies equal protection under equal circumstances. Article 14 restricts the classification as hostile and discriminatory in nature. However, it does not restrict the classification, which is reasonable in nature. In the cases of Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar (1955) and Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition (1965), it was laid down that for a classification to be reasonable, it must fulfil two criteria:

• The said classification must be based on an intelligible differentia, and
• The said classification, based upon intelligible differentia, must be related to the object that is sought to be achieved. 

Article 15 : Prohibition from Discrimination

This Article prohibits discrimination of any kind and states that no individual can be discriminated against based on religion, race, sex, caste, or place of birth. This Article is further divided into six clauses: 

• Article 15(1): This clause suggests prohibiting the state from discriminating against any individual. It states that the state shall not make discrimination against any citizen on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of the grounds laid before.
• Article 15(2): This clause states that no person shall be denied access to any public place like railway stations or use public facilities like wells, roads, etc. It provides that no citizen shall be discriminated against on the similar grounds laid down in clause (1) of Article 15 and subject to any disability, any restriction with respect to access to restaurants, shops, hotels, places of public entertainment, and the use of wells, bathing places, tanks, roads, places, etc. This provision paves the way for Article 17 to abolish untouchability. 
• Article 15(3): This clause provides for exceptions to clauses (1) and (2) for the prohibition of discrimination. It provides that the state shall make special provisions for women and children. This provision was introduced with the objective of uplifting women and children, who are considered the most vulnerable sections of society. This provision was made to neutralise the gap between gender equality and empower women to overcome the obstacles that come their way.

Article 14 protects all persons, be they citizens of India or foreigners, whereas Article 15 has a narrow scope and only extends to the citizens of India.

In the case of Anjali Roy v. State of West Bengal (1952), the petitioner (Ms. Anjali Roy) completed her schooling and wanted to take admission to Hooghly Mohsin College to pursue her honours degree. At the time when she filled out the application form for the purpose of taking admission to said college, her application was transferred to a women’s college nearby that was newly established. The college did not have an honours program or proper educational facilities. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in the High Court of Calcutta for the purpose of issuing an appropriate writ directing the principal of the said college to take admission. The Court stated that the Women’s College was established with respect to the special provisions for women, and it was held that she was not denied admission because she was a woman but because the Women’s College was established as a step towards the development and advancement of women as per the special provisions given under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. 

• Article 15(4): This clause allows the state to make special provisions for weaker sections of society, like the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, and other weaker sections recognized by the government. The said provision was not included at the time of the commencement of this Constitution but was added by way of the First Amendment Act, 1951, in order to correct the wrongs done to the backward classes and to provide them with social justice. The concept of social justice has been considered as a part of the basic structure by the Apex Court.
• Article 15(5): This clause allows the state to make special provisions for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for their admissions to educational institutions for the purpose of their development and advancement. The term educational institutions refers to public as well as private educational institutions, be they aided or unaided, but excludes educational institutions established for minorities. The said provision was not a part of the Constitution at the time of its commencement but was later added by way of the 93rd Amendment Act 2005. 
• Article 15(6): This clause states that the provisions under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 29(2) shall not prevent the state from making special provisions for the development of economically weaker sections except those mentioned in clause (4) &(5) of this Article and special provisions for their admissions to educational institutions, which include private institutions as well as those aided or unaided by the states; however, it does not cover the educational institutions of minorities given under Article 30(1).

Article 16 : Equality of opportunity and matters of public employment

This Article aims to provide equal opportunity to citizens in employment provided by the state. This Article is further divided into 5 parts:

• Article 16(1): This clause states that all citizens should be given equal opportunity in matters of employment.
• Article 16(2): This clause prohibits discrimination in matters of employment provided by the state.
• Article 16(3): This clause allows the parliament to make laws that require residential requirements for public employment.
• Article 16(4): This clause allows the parliament to make special provisions for weaker sections of society in matters related to public employment in order to promote the principle of social justice, which is considered a part of the basic structure by the Apex Court.
• Article 16(5): This clause permits the parliament to make laws that require a person belonging to a particular religion to be appointed to an institution of that religion.

Article 17 : Abolition of Untouchability

This Article prohibits the practice of untouchability. Practising untouchability in any form is a punishable offence. 

Article 18 : Abolition of Titles 

This Article prohibits the state from conferring titles. However, the state is not prohibited from conferring titles that are academic or military in nature.

Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22 of the Indian Constitution)

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution

This Article guarantees 6 freedoms to the citizens of India.

Freedom of speech and expression

Article 19(1)(a) is a very important or essential right that provides citizens with the freedom to express their views in different forms, whether by speech, acts, images, art, etc. However, this right is not absolute, and certain reasonable restrictions are imposed upon it that are given under Article 19(2). It states that the right guaranteed under clause (a) shall not affect or prevent the state from making any law, and there are certain reasonable restrictions imposed upon it, which include interests in the sovereignty and integrity of the country. This was added by way of the 16th Amendment Act, 1963, security of state, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, etc.

In the landmark case of Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court widened the interpretation of freedom of speech and expression and stated that it includes the freedom to present ideas and views. In another case, Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1961), freedom of the press was also included within the ambit of freedom of speech and expression. The Court stated that freedom of speech and expression is a vital part of our Constitution, and it also includes the freedom to publish one’s opinion.

Freedom of peaceful assembly without arms

Article 19(1)(b) provides for the freedom to assemble peacefully without arms, which implies that the assembly must be non-violent and should not cause any inconvenience to the public. However, if the assembly is disturbing public peace, then it will not come under the freedom given in this Article. This right has certain reasonable restrictions imposed upon it and is given under Article 19(3), which includes public order and maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

In the case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962), an appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the petitioner, Kameshwar Prasad, against the order of Patna High Court for dismissing their writ petition that was filed against the notification of the Government of Bihar, which introduced the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. Rule 4A restricts or stops government servants from taking part in any strike or demonstration regarding the condition of their services. The High Court of Patna stated that said rule comes within the purview of reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(3) of the Indian Constitution and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court by way of appeal, wherein the Court upheld the decision of the High Court of Patna by stating that there is no way to right to strike within the Fundamental Rights; however, the Apex Court partly allowed the appeal by stating that the rule restricting demonstrations by government servants is definitely violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) and must be struck down. The Court also stated that it cannot be accepted that the class of government servants is excluded from the protection of fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Freedom of forming associations or unions

Article 19(1)(c) provides for the freedom to form associations and unions, which includes the right to form or join or not to form or not to join the associations or unions. It also has certain reasonable restrictions imposed upon it under Article 19(4), which are the restrictions imposed in the interest of public order, morality, integrity, and the sovereignty of the country.

Freedom of movement throughout the territory of India

Article 19(1)(d) provides for the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and provides immunity to the citizens against the arbitrary actions of states. This right is available only to the citizens of India and not to foreigners. 

Freedom of residence and settlement in any part of the territory of India

Article 19(1)(e) provides for citizens to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. The reasonable restrictions for Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) are given under Article 19(5), which includes the restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public for the protection of the interests of Scheduled Tribes.

Freedom of profession, occupation, trade, or business

Article 19(1)(g) provides for the right to practise any profession, trade, or business, and it is the duty of the state to ensure that no individual is deprived of this right. This right gives the citizen the right to choose his or her source of living. However, there are certain reasonable restrictions imposed upon this right, and this includes restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Protection in respect of conviction for offences: This Article provides protection to individuals accused of crimes. It has 3 sub-clauses:

• Article 20(1): This clause contains provisions related to the ex-post-facto law, which provides that no person shall be punished for acts that were not punishable at the time of commission.
• Article 20(2): This clause contains provisions regarding ‘double jeopardy’ which state that a person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
• Article 20(3): This clause contains provisions regarding protection against self-incrimination and states that no person accused of a crime can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Protection of life and personal liberty: This Article provides the right to life and personal liberty. No person can be deprived of this right except according to the procedure established by law. This Article has been given a wider connotation by the Supreme Court in the context of the case and includes the right to a healthy environment, the right to sleep, the right to education, etc. within the ambit of the right to life.

The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) is related to Article 21, wherein the petitioner’s passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Office at New Delhi when she went to the Delhi Airport for the purpose of travelling somewhere. The reason for impounding her passport was not stated by the Ministry of External Affairs. The petitioner went to the Supreme Court, stating that it was a violation of her right to travel abroad. The Apex Court held that the order given by the government for impounding the petitioner’s passport is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Court, in this milestone judgement, interlinked Articles 14, 19, and 21 as the golden triangle. This judgement is very significant in the development of Article 21. 

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution

Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases: This Article provides procedural safeguards to individuals in cases of arrest, like the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the duty of the police authorities to produce the arrested individual before a magistrate within 24 hours.

Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24 of the Indian Constitution)

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution

Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour: This Article prohibits human trafficking and any kind of forced labour. It not only protects citizens from the actions of states but also provides protections against the actions of private individuals.

Article 24 of the Indian Constitution

Prohibition of employment of children: This Article prohibits children below the age of 14 from being employed in hazardous places like factories or mines. But the children working in non-hazardous employment are still allowed. Various laws were passed in pursuance of Article 24, which includes the Factories Act, 1948, the Mines Act, 1952, the Child Labour and Prohibition Act, 1986 etc.

In People’s Union for Democratic Republic v. Union of India (1982), a writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court for the gross violation of Article 24 of the Indian Constitution, wherein some child employers were working in inhumane and dangerous conditions at a construction site in Delhi. The said matter came to the attention of the People’s Union for the Democratic Republic, which resulted in the filing of this petition. The main issue was whether Article 21 includes the right to live life with dignity. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Articles 23 and 21. The Court stated that Article 23 includes forced labour as well, and it is a violation of Article 21, which includes the right to live life with dignity. 

Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution)

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

Freedom of conscience and religion: This Article ensures freedom of religion for every citizen of the country.

The case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1987) is popularly known as the national anthem case. In this case, three students studying in a government school situated in a district of Kerala were debarred from school for not singing the national anthem due to their different religious beliefs, which eventually led to disciplinary action against them by the school authorities. The three children filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, where the petition was dismissed. Then, they approached the Supreme Court by way of filing an SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of students and stated that the action taken by the school authorities was arbitrary in nature and violated Article 25 of the Constitution, which provides for freedom of conscience and religion. It further held that Article 25 not only includes the freedom to hold religious beliefs but to express them as well. There is a gross violation of students fundamental rights, and the action was taken on unreasonable grounds. By way of this judgement, the Apex Court observed the significance of Article 25, which deals with the freedom of conscience and religion.

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution

Freedom to manage religious affairs: This Article gives every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for the purposes of religion and charity; in matters of religion, the right to manage its own affairs; the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and the right to administer such property as per the law; however, these rights are subjected to public order, morality, and health. 

In the case of Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961), the Dargah Khwaja Saheb Act, 1955, was in question, wherein the members claimed that it violates the fundamental rights of the Muslim community who belong to the Soofi Chista order. The members of said order contended that they are the sole owners of Ajmer’s shrine, but the dispute was that the Act only permitted Muslims belonging to the Hanafi community to take over the management of said Dargah. It was contended that the Act infringes on their fundamental right enshrined under Article 26, which deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs. The respondents went to the High Court of Rajasthan by way of writ petition under Article 226, wherein it was stated that the Act is unconstitutional and passed in favour of the respondents. The appellants approached the Supreme Court, and it set aside the order passed by the High Court, which observed that Article 26 is a significant provision that provides safety to the religious denominations in order to manage their religious affairs. It also restricted the acts of state from interfering in such issues unless there was a sufficient reason for the same.

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution

Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion: This Article provides that no taxes shall be imposed by the state for the promotion and maintenance of a particular religion.

The landmark case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shhirur Mutt (1954), is related to the violation of Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. In the said case, the Mathadhipati of Krishna Mutt filed a petition in the High Court of Madras and prayed for issuing the writ of prohibition against the order of the board for implementing the scheme for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Mutt as per Section 62 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the Act. The High Court of Madras held some sections of the said Act as unconstitutional and in contravention of some fundamental rights, such as Articles 25, 26, and 27. However, aggrieved with the decision of the High Court, the petitioner presented an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The main issue was whether the money taken under Section 76 of the Act would be considered a tax or not. The Court stated that it is similar to tax, but it depends upon the capability of the payer, and hence it is a tax under Section 76. The Court held that Article 27 is not violated; however, some sections of the Act are in conflict with the Fundamental Rights, but the rest of the Act is valid and constitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 

Article 28 of the Indian Constitution

Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions: This Article provides that religious groups can establish educational institutions to disseminate religious instruction.

Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30 of the Indian Constitution)

Article 29 of the Indian Constitution

Protection of interest of minorities: This Article provides that a community of people has the right to conserve their language, script, or culture.

Article 30 of the Indian Constitution

Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions: This Article permits religious and linguistic minorities to establish educational institutions. 

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution

Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): This Article guarantees remedies in cases of violation of the fundamental rights of citizens. This permits citizens to approach the Supreme Court if their fundamental rights are violated. This Article empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate orders, directions, and writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Certiorari, and Prohibition. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has named this Article as the ‘heart and soul’ of the Indian Constitution. It keeps a check on the arbitrary actions of states and authorities in order to protect and promote the fundamental rights of citizens.

The case of ADM (Additional District Magistrate) Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) is popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, wherein a political leader named Shivkant Shukla was arrested during the period when an emergency was imposed in 1975 and the Fundamental Rights were also suspended. He was arrested and detained as per the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), 1971. Meanwhile, his wife filed a writ petition of Habeas Corpus. The issue was whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended during an emergency. The Supreme Court, in its verdict by a majority of 4:1, held that during a period of emergency, the right to life and personal liberty could be suspended, and the judiciary cannot intervene in the process of detention of an individual as per the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The judgement pronounced by the Supreme Court in this case was later criticised for its negative stance on fundamental rights. However, the said case was overruled in another landmark case, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), wherein the Apex Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

It is to be noted that the right to property was initially a fundamental right. At present, it is a legal right under Article 300A, which was added by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978.

What are Fundamental Duties

Fundamental duties are the moral obligations of the citizens towards the country. They are provided in Article 51A under Part IVA of the Indian Constitution. Originally, these weren’t a part of the Constitution. They were added by the 42nd and 86th Constitutional Amendment Acts, which were recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee. The concept of fundamental duties was borrowed from the USSR. These duties were drafted to prepare an ethical, moral, and cultural code of conduct. These are to be followed by citizens to protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the country. The fundamental duties play a significant role in the progress and advancement of a country, as they impose a duty upon the citizens to perform their obligations towards their country. Basically, it is the responsibility of a citizen to perform certain acts that he is obliged to perform in order to promote the growth and development of the country.

At first, there were 10 Fundamental Duties that were added by the 42nd Amendment, and later on, one more was added by the 86th Amendment. The 11 fundamental duties are as follows:

1. To abide by the Constitution and respect the Indian flag and the National Anthem.
2. To follow the ideas that inspired the freedom struggle.
3. To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
4. To defend the country and serve the nation when called upon.
5. To promote harmony and brotherhood among the people of India and to renounce derogatory practices that demean women.
6. To value and preserve the rich heritage of our culture.
7. To protect and improve the natural environment and have compassion for living creatures.
8. To develop scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry.
9. To protect public property.
10. To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activities.
11. To provide educational opportunities to children between 6-14 years of age, it is also the duty of the parents to ensure the same.

The 11th Fundamental Duty was added by way of the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002.

Case laws relevant to fundamental duties

Shri Ranganath Mishra v. Union of India (2003)

In the present case, the former Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Shri Ranganath Mishra, wrote a letter dated 18-03-1998 to the then Chief Justice of India, V.N. Khare, and the said letter was treated as a writ petition. The present writ petition was heard by a Constitution bench. In the said letter, it was stated that it is the responsibility of a citizen to be aware of their rights as well as their duties, and it becomes the duty of the state to make its citizens aware of those duties in order to maintain a proper balance. The letter was treated as a writ petition in the public interest. The Supreme Court ordered a committee, under the expertise of Justice J.S. Verma, to make recommendations for the purpose of spreading awareness and knowledge about fundamental duties. The said committee met two times and submitted its report in due course to the Court. In the said report, it talked about the national anthem, which should be learned by every citizen, and to sing it properly by heart.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Union v. A.I.I.M.S. (2001)

In the present case, the Apex Court supported the merit test over reservation regarding admission to PG medical courses. For the purpose of admission to such PG courses, the AIIMS holds a national entrance examination, and the AIIMS follows a rule of 40% reserved seats in these courses for graduates under the UG program, which later resulted in lower marks for internal students, and due to the said reason, the said rule was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, set aside the said rule by stating that it is unconstitutional as it is in contravention of the right to equality under Article 14. It was observed that the reservation inside the institution does not support the principles laid down in the Constitution. The Apex Court also stated that fundamental duties hold the same value and importance as fundamental rights; both are termed as ‘fundamental’ and have equal importance. They are both related to each other.

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights 

We have seen that there are certain fundamental rights available to the citizens of this country. Now the question that arises is how are these rights enforced? What gives these rights the power to eclipse a proposed law? 

The answer lies in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. This Article empowers the fundamental rights that are available to citizens. Basically, Article 13 shields these fundamental rights from infringement by the government. Article 13(1) states that any law in force before the commencement of the Constitution, as long as they are inconsistent with any fundamental right, will be void. This means that any pre-Constitution era law that is in force but has some part of it that is infringing on these fundamental rights will become void from the date on which the Constitution of India came into effect, which is 26th January 1950. Article 13(2) declares that the state shall not make any law that takes away or alters fundamental rights. Also, any such law, to the extent of the infringement, shall be void. This means that the state cannot abuse its powers and meddle with the fundamental rights of its citizens. 

Now, there needs to be a remedy if there is a right, or else it will be just words on paper and nothing more. For this, the Constitution-makers have provided the ultimate defence. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is the ultimate defence. It states that infringement of the fundamental rights of a citizen would allow them to approach the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court. So when the state deprives an individual of his fundamental right, he can approach the Supreme Court for legal remedy. It is important to note that Article 32 is itself a fundamental right, thereby ensuring that the state cannot take away this power from the citizens. Article 226 also allows citizens to approach the High Courts for the same. Some key differences to note here are that Article 32 is a fundamental right and Article 226 is a legal right. The scope of the High Courts is wider, as they can issue writs for infringement of legal rights in addition to fundamental rights, unlike the Supreme Court, which can only issue writs in cases of violation of fundamental rights.

How is the performance of Fundamental Duties ensured

If fundamental duties are moral obligations towards the country, then how is the performance of these duties ensured? It is important to note that fundamental duties are non-justiciable in nature. This means a person cannot be punished for not performing his fundamental duties. The reasons for this are discussed in the next section below. It is also important to note that there is nothing in the Indian Constitution that provides for direct enforcement of these duties by the courts. That means no one can approach the court to seek a remedy if there is a non-performance of these duties by someone else. 

However, the Parliament can enforce these duties indirectly by making suitable legislation. Nothing stops the Parliament from making a law that prohibits any act that is in violation of its duties. This is how the fundamental duties can be made indirectly enforceable. Let’s look at some examples:

• To ensure the performance of the duty given in Article 51A(g), which is the duty to protect the environment, the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the government to take steps to make this provision effective. It also issued some directions to the government:

1. To direct educational institutions throughout the country to impart lessons in the first ten classes relating to the protection and improvement of the environment.
2. To produce textbooks written on this topic and distribute them for free.
3. To introduce short-term courses to train teachers.
4. All government employees and authorities are to introduce cleanliness weeks and take measures to keep their surroundings clean. 

• Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: This Act prohibits the destruction or insult of National Symbols, which include the National Flag, National Emblem, National Anthem, the Constitution, and the map of India. It includes punishment with imprisonment, which may extend to three years, a fine, or both, for the disruption of the National Anthem.
• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: An Act to prescribe punishment for the preaching and practice of untouchability.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: This Act allows the government to protect and improve the environment and also restricts anyone from operating or setting up industries on environmental grounds.
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: This Act of the Parliament of India provides for the conservation of forests and matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.

Can one be punished if they do not perform their Fundamental Duties

Fundamental duties, by their nature, are not enforceable or justiciable, i.e., no person can be held liable for non-performance of fundamental duties. The Swaran Singh Committee had proposed penal actions for non-performance of these duties, but these were rejected later. The reason is that the majority of the Indian population was illiterate at that time, and the language used to define the duties makes it tougher for someone with limited knowledge to grasp the message. In such a scenario, making these duties justiciable would have led to a lot of commotion, as every other person would have violated these duties unknowingly. As we have seen in the above section, no one can be punished if they do not perform their fundamental duties. But one can be punished if they perform a prohibited act that violates their fundamental duties. Hence, there is no punishment for non-performance, but there is punishment for acts that violate fundamental duties.

Difference between Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties 

Basis	Fundamental Rights	Fundamental Duties
Definition	Basic human rights are available to every citizen, irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed, or gender.	The moral obligation of the citizens towards the country is to protect its sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
Part of the Constitution	Present in Part III of the Indian Constitution.	Present in Part IVA of the Indian Constitution.
Total number	There are 6 rights that have been made available to Indian citizens as fundamental rights.	There are a total of 11 fundamental duties that should be abided by the citizens of this nation.
Borrowed from	The concept of fundamental rights is borrowed from the United States of America.	The concept of fundamental duties is borrowed from the USSR.
Availability	Is available to citizens only, while some of them are available to foreigners too.	Available to and binding upon citizens only.
Nature	Political and social in nature.	Political, social, and economic in nature.
Justiciability	Justiciable	Non-Justiciable
Articles	Articles 12 to 35 deal with fundamental rights.	Article 51A deals with fundamental duties.
Enforceability	They are directly enforceable.	There is no provision for direct enforcement by the courts. Parliament can enforce them through suitable legislation.
Legal outercourse	One can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for the violation of their fundamental rights under Article 32 or 226 by praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ.	There would be no legal action taken for the enforcement of such duties, as they are not enforceable.
Amenability	They can be amended, but are subject to the condition of not amending the basic structure.	They can be amended easily.

Conclusion

Both fundamental rights and fundamental duties are important as they complement each other. There can be no demand for rights if the duties bestowed upon the citizens are neglected. Even though only fundamental rights are enforceable and justiciable in nature, fundamental duties are equally important. By performing moral obligations, we make efforts to create a better society, as was envisioned by the makers of the Indian Constitution. These duties were not made justiciable because not everyone would grasp this concept and understand what these terms mean. India’s majority population being uneducated played a huge role in this decision. But people like us, who are capable of understanding them, should follow and promote these ideas for the betterment of this country.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

What are the sources of fundamental rights and fundamental duties?

The concept of fundamental rights is taken from the United States of America, whereas the concept of fundamental duties is taken from the Soviet Union (USSR).

What is the nature of fundamental rights and fundamental duties?

The fundamental rights are justiciable in nature, whereas the fundamental duties are non-justiciable in nature. The fundamental rights are enforceable in the court of law, while the fundamental duties are not enforceable in the court of law.

Are fundamental rights absolute or qualified?

Fundamental rights are qualified but not absolute. This is because the state has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on these rights. For example, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) is not absolute. The state can hold a person liable if their speech damages the reputation of another.

What is the difference between fundamental rights and duties?

Fundamental rights are basic human rights given to citizens of a country. They are justiciable in nature. Fundamental duties are the moral obligations of the citizens towards the country. These duties are not justiciable in nature.

What is the relationship between fundamental rights and fundamental duties? 

The relationship between fundamental rights and duties is that for every right, there is a corresponding duty. One’s right is another person’s duty. If people don’t perform their duties, the rights of others will be affected.

References

• https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/difference-between-fundamental-rights-and-fundamental-duties-1625575305-1
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/07/01/fundamental-duties-as-a-mean-to-achieve-responsible-citizenry/
• https://www.lawnn.com/right-to-constitutional-remedies/#:~:text=Article%2032(2)%20vests%20the,directly%20at%20the%20Supreme%20Court.
• https://www.myadvo.in/blog/10-fundamental-duties-you-need-to-know-about/
• https://www.nextias.com/blog/fundamental-duties/ 
• https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-fundamental-rights-and-fundamental-duties/ 
• https://forumias.com/blog/difference-between-fundamental-rights-and-fundamental-duties/ 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.