FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND THEIR ENFORCEABILITY: A STUDY

Abstract

The Constitution of India, like the Constitutions of most other democratic countries, provides a number of Fundamental Rights for its inhabitants. The Indian Constitution not only guarantees these Fundamental Rights, but they are also more detailed and genuine than those contained in other countries' constitutions. In this chapter, we will look at the notion of Fundamental Rights established in India's Constitution's third portion. On the advice of the Swarn Singh committee, 10 fundamental obligations were included into the Constitution by virtue of the constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002. The 11th duty was introduced by the 86th Amendment in 2002. Except for a few such obligations, there appear to be few leading elements for the remedy of violation. Some citizens' responsibilities are enshrined in the constitutions of the Indian Subcontinent, while others are governed by law, tradition, and/or precedent. Fundamental obligations are also included in the Chinese Constitution in numerous Articles under the heading 'Fundamental Rights and Duties.' The law is a balance of rights and responsibilities. The person burdened with the relevant obligation is a citizen(s) of India, according to the operative lines of Article 51-A. Article 51-A (a) to (k) of India's constitution is the topic of the right. While the beneficiary in whom the right vests are arguable, the act or forbearance is the citizen's behavior. Some of the responsibilities and remedies are outlined in laws such as the Indian Penal Code, the Environmental Protection Act of 1986, the Emblem and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act of 1950, and the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act of 1971. There appears to be no remedy for the breach under Article 51- A(b),(d),(f),(h) & (j), necessitating the adoption of corrective measures to instill obligations. At first instance, breach of duty as an act or omission should be treated as an actionable wrong of 'civil misconduct,' rather than being remedied by penalty for an offence except in its severe form and/or for persistent wrong. As a result, the matter has been discussed and debated based on the strength of theological methodology, which includes the use of both primary and secondary source material.