CLAT 2022 || Fundamental Duties Quiz II 31.03.2021

“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”

At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.

“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82^nd amendmet an 11^th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”

Webs of duties

The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.

Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.

Issue lies in conflation

The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.

Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.

Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.

[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]

“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”

At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.

“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82^nd amendmet an 11^th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”

Webs of duties

The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.

Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.

Issue lies in conflation

The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.

Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.

Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.

[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]

“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”

At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.

“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82^nd amendmet an 11^th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”

Webs of duties

The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.

Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.

Issue lies in conflation

The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.

Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.

Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.

[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]

“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”

At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.

“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82^nd amendmet an 11^th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”

Webs of duties

The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.

Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.

Issue lies in conflation

The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.

Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.

Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.

[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]

“It is only after a guarantee of the sum of all promised by the Constitution that citizens can be asked to do their duty”

At the height of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s government enacted sweeping changes to the Constitution, through the 42nd Amendment including adding Fundamental duties to our grundnorm after the fundamental rights chapter (Chapter III) borrowing from her close ally country, USSR. These changes were intended to entrench the supremacy of the government, permanently muzzle the courts, and weaken the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to avoid concentration and abuse of power.

“Fundamental duties” and “anti-national activities” came into the world fused under Article 51 (A) at the hip. And while Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime has long been consigned to the dustbin of history, its legacies endure. Even so much that under the 82^nd amendmet an 11^th duty was added that a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child, or as the case may be, ward between the age of six to fourteen years. “Anti-national” has become a boundlessly manipulable word, that, in the spirit of Humpty Dumpty, can mean whatever those in power want it to mean. “Fundamental duties” have been making a comeback as well: at an International Judicial Conference 2020 this weekend, the Chief Justice of India, S.A. Bobde, drew attention to the Constitution’s Fundamental Duties chapter (Part IVA). He then went further, and citing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, observed that “real rights are a result of [the] performance of duty.”

Webs of duties

The first thing to note is that as citizens, there exists a wide range of duties that bind us in everyday life. These duties are owed both to the state, and to other individuals. We have a legal duty to pay our taxes, to refrain from committing violence against our fellow-citizens, and to follow other laws that Parliament has enacted. Breach of these legal duties triggers financial consequences (fines), or even time in jail. At any given time, therefore, we are already following a host of duties, which guide and constrain how we may behave. This has been codified with eleven duties being enisted. This is the price that must be paid for living in society, and it is a price that nobody, at least, in principle, objects to paying.

Our duties and the consequences we bear for failing to keep them therefore exist as a self-contained whole. They follow a simple logic: that peaceful co-existence requires a degree of self-sacrifice, and that if necessary, this must be enforced through the set of sanctions.

Issue lies in conflation

The problem, however, lies in the conflation of rights and duties. As Samuel Moyn points out in an illuminating article in The Boston Review, “the rhetoric of duties has often been deployed euphemistically by those whose true purpose is a return to tradition won by limiting the rights of others”. In that context, it is always critical to remember Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly (which were also cited by the CJI in his speech): that the fundamental unit of the Constitution remains the individual.

Without the moral compass of rights and their place in the transformative Constitutional scheme the language of duties can lead to unpleasant consequences. It can end up entrenching existing power structures by placing the burden of “duties” upon those that are already vulnerable and marginalised. It is for this reason that, at the end of the day, the Constitution, a charter of liberation, is fundamentally about rights and fundamental duties are not enforceable or mandatory to be followed. It is only after guarantee to all the full sum of humanity, dignity, equality, and freedom promised by the Constitution, that we can ask of them to do their duty.

Perhaps, then, it is time to update Hind Swaraj for the constitutional age: “real duties are the result of the fulfillment of rights”.

[Extracted with edits from, “Rights, duties and the Constitution.”, by Gautam Bhatia; https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/rights-duties-and-the-constitution/article30915951.ece ]

Legal Principles:

I. Fundamental duties basically imply the moral obligations of all citizens of a country and today, there are 11 fundamental duties in India, which are written in Part IV-A of the Constitution, to promote patriotism and strengthen the unity of India.

The following are the Fundamental Duties:

i. Abide by the Constitution and respect the national flag & National Anthem

ii. Follow ideals of the freedom struggle

iii. Protect sovereignty & integrity of India

iv. Defend the country and render national services when called upon

v. Sprit of common brotherhood

vi. Preserve composite culture

vii. Preserve natural environment

viii. Develop scientific temper

ix. Safeguard public property

x. Strive for excellence

xi. Duty of all parents/guardians to send their children in the age group of 6-14 years to school.

II. In case there is a violation of fundamental duties, Article 51A of the Constitution categorizes it as contempt of the constitution which is punishable under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Legal Principles:

I. Fundamental duties basically imply the moral obligations of all citizens of a country and today, there are 11 fundamental duties in India, which are written in Part IV-A of the Constitution, to promote patriotism and strengthen the unity of India.

The following are the Fundamental Duties:

i. Abide by the Constitution and respect the national flag & National Anthem

ii. Follow ideals of the freedom struggle

iii. Protect sovereignty & integrity of India

iv. Defend the country and render national services when called upon

v. Sprit of common brotherhood

vi. Preserve composite culture

vii. Preserve natural environment

viii. Develop scientific temper

ix. Safeguard public property

x. Strive for excellence

xi. Duty of all parents/guardians to send their children in the age group of 6-14 years to school.

II. In case there is a violation of fundamental duties, Article 51A of the Constitution categorizes it as contempt of the constitution which is punishable under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Legal Principles:

I. Fundamental duties basically imply the moral obligations of all citizens of a country and today, there are 11 fundamental duties in India, which are written in Part IV-A of the Constitution, to promote patriotism and strengthen the unity of India.

The following are the Fundamental Duties:

i. Abide by the Constitution and respect the national flag & National Anthem

ii. Follow ideals of the freedom struggle

iii. Protect sovereignty & integrity of India

iv. Defend the country and render national services when called upon

v. Sprit of common brotherhood

vi. Preserve composite culture

vii. Preserve natural environment

viii. Develop scientific temper

ix. Safeguard public property

x. Strive for excellence

xi. Duty of all parents/guardians to send their children in the age group of 6-14 years to school.

II. In case there is a violation of fundamental duties, Article 51A of the Constitution categorizes it as contempt of the constitution which is punishable under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.