Fundamental duties 

The Fundamental duties are dealt with in Article 51A under Part lV-A of the Indian Constitution. Part lV-A was added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1976. The Swaran Singh Committee was set up in 1976 to make recommendations about Fundamental duties, the need and necessity of which was felt during the operation of Internal Emergency (1975-1977). The committee recommended the inclusion of a separate section on the fundamental duties in the Constitution. It suggested the inclusion of 8 Fundamental duties in the constitution. But by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 10 Fundamental duties were added to the constitution. 

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India: 

1. To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, National Flag, and National Anthem. 
2. To cherish and follow the Nobel ideals that inspired the national struggle for freedom. 
3. To upload and protect India’s sovereignty, unity and integrity.
4. To defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so. 
5. To promote harmony and the spirit of brotherhood among all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic, and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. 
6. To value and preserve the rich heritage of the country’s composite culture.
7. To protect and improve the natural environment (forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife) and to have compassion for living creatures. 
8. To develop the scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.
9. To safeguard public property and to adjure violence.
10. To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to a higher level of endeavor and achievements.
11. To provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between the ages of 6 and 14 years. 

(This duty was added by the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002). Importance 

Despite criticisms and opposition, the fundamental duties are considered Significant from the following viewpoints:

1. They serve as a reminder to the citizens that while enjoying their rights, they should also be conscious of the duties they owe to their country, their society, and their fellow citizens. 
2. They serve as a warning against antinational and antisocial activities like burning the national flag, destroying public property, and so on. 
3. They serve as a source of inspiration for the citizens and promote a sense of discipline and commitment among them. They create a feeling that the citizens are not mere spectators but active participants in the Realisation of national goals. 
4. They help the courts in examining and determining the Constitutional validity of a law. In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that in determining the constitutionality of any law, if a court finds that the law in question seeks to give effect to a fundamental duty, it may consider such law to be ‘reasonable’ about Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 19 (six freedoms) and thus save such law from unconstitutionality. 
5. They are enforceable by law. Hence, the Parliament can provide for the imposition of appropriate penalties or punishment for failure to fulfill any of them. 

Case study 

AIIMS Student Union vs AIIMS (2001) 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

This case concerns the significance of the principal duties enshrined in Article 51A, particularly in the context of the institutional reservation policy in AIIMS. The policy of 33% reservation for AIIMS students, combined with 50% reservation in certain disciplines, was challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The Health Survey and Development Committee, also known as the Bhore Committee, in its 1946 report, recommended the establishment of a national medical center in Delhi. The purpose was to train capable educators and researchers to meet the growing healthcare demands across the country. Following independence, the Union Ministry of Health worked to bring this idea to fruition. A generous grant of one million pounds from the Government of New Zealand through the Colombo Plan helped translate the concept into reality. An Act of Parliament in 1956 led to the creation of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) as an autonomous institution of national importance, defining its goals and functions. While the fundamental duties in Article 51A are not legally enforceable like fundamental rights,

they cannot be disregarded, as they reflect significant obligations towards the development of scientific temper and humanism in society. However, Article 51A does not impose any specific duty on the state. The collective obligation of all citizens remains the state’s obligation. Any reservation policy, besides being constitutionally valid, must be reasonable and fair. The Court considered whether the quantum nature of reservations would hinder the achievement of excellence, which is essential for the country’s progress. While fundamental duties are not enforceable by courts, they offer vital guidance in interpreting constitutional and legal matters. Courts should use these duties to assess whether state actions align with constitutional values and contribute to the greater good. 

Issues 

(1) Does AIIMS hold a unique status under the AIIMS Act, of 1956, and can the 33% institutional reservation for AIIMS students, introduced in 1978, be justified under university-specific reservation principles? 

(2) Is it justifiable to have an institutional reservation, particularly the 33% reservation for MBBS students in postgraduate courses at AIIMS, given that it is a premier institution for medical education, research, and teaching? 

Judgment 

The judgment centered on the application of equitable principles regarding education and reservation, which are dynamic and subject to evolving economic pressures. The Court emphasized that the state must protect the rights of all citizens, especially those from disadvantaged sections of society, to help them achieve equality with more privileged sections. However, this objective is undermined when institutional reservations, such as the one in question, are introduced. The Court referred to previous decisions, including Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. v. Thukral Anjali, where it was established that any preferential treatment that fails to meet the criteria of merit and necessity violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In AIIMS Student’s Union v. AIIMS and Ors., the Court stressed the importance of principal duties that all citizens must uphold, which are as significant as fundamental rights. The judgment effectively made a strong case for the importance of these duties, relating them to issues of institutional reservation and equality. It reaffirmed the state’s obligation to maintain genuine merit, particularly in the realm of public health, and cautioned against misusing reservations to favor students who are not in as much need as others struggling to find their place in society. The judgment emphasized that reservations should never be mistaken for mere advantages or privileges granted to those who are

already better positioned. Instead, they should be directed at ensuring fairness and equity for those who truly need support.