Author: Nirbhay Singh, Lovely Professional University

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case judgment concerns and involves the part of the Constitution of India, Order 51 A that deals with the realization of rights and duties of its citizens and was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 31-7-2003. The petitioner, the former Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranganath Mishra had also sent a letter to the Chief Justice of India stressing for creating awareness and education on the aspects of Fundamental Duties in large. In this letter, the Court treated it as a writ petition. From the interest that the petitioner showed, the issue at hand seemed to support the equality of people’s rights and responsibilities as citizens. Therefore, for the determination of this case, the court-appointed Shri K. Parasaran as an Amicus Curiae, the court referred this matter to a larger Bench since it is very important in hopefully reversing the majority decision of the Court in the Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala case. Thus, the court actively discussing the propositions of Justice J. S. Verma Committee stimulated the process of creation of a mechanism for enforcing the provisions of the fundamental duties. The verdict also ordered the Central Government to consider these recommendations of the bodies seriously and sympathetically, to bring into action and develop a responsible sign of national conscience in the people.

Keywords: Fundamental Duties, Constitutional Law, Education Reform, Justice J.S. Verma Committee, Citizen Awareness

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case started with a letter to the Chief Justice of India Shri Ranganath Mishra via the Supreme Court where it was treated as a writ petition. In his letter, the petitioner explicitly pointed out that it was of paramount significance to maintain citizens’ awareness of their fundamental duties, stating that it was due to this perspective that the recognition of rights should be accompanied by the acknowledgment of obligations. This court realizing the importance of this issue engaged Shri K. Parasaran as an Amicus Curiae to assist the court with the issue. Given the questions being framed in the case, especially in the light of the decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the court first referred the case to a constitutional bench. But this order was recalled soon, and the issue was transferred to a three-judge bench for a revised look into the issue.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

i) Procedural Background of the Case:
The case started when the petitioner, Shri Ranganath Mishra addressed the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in writing; the same has been transferred by the apex court in the form of writ. The matter, which pertains to the discharge of some significant questions of constitutional importance concerning the concept of the fundamental duties of citizens, was at first entrusted to the Constitution Bench. However, by subsequent orders, the same was stationed before a bench consisting of three Judges.
ii) Factual Background of the Case:
The primary relief the petitioner sought in the current matter was an order requiring the state to address education on the subject of citizen’s fundamental duties. He pointed out the need for such education to fill the gap between the rights of the citizens and the corresponding responsibilities. On coming across a few elementary educational reform recommendations and efforts to enhance awareness regarding the fundamental duties, the attention of the court was directed to the report of the Justice J. S. Verma Committee. This report highlighted the need to incorporate the fundamental duties of citizens as part of the curriculum that a society passes through in their everyday lives.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the state must educate citizens about their fundamental duties:
The first one was about the state’s responsibility to educate and produce conscious citizens of India as per Article 51A of the constitution of India.
2. Whether the recommendations of the Justice J. S. Verma Committee are valid and necessary of being implemented:
Another important problem concerned with survival correlates with the consideration of the possibilities and advisability of applying recommendations conveyed by the Justice J. S. Verma Committee to ensure fundamental duties implementation.

F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

Counsel for the petitioner explained how there is such a major need in society for people to be taught their fundamental duties. Such an education is critical to promote the understanding that with every right one ought to take there are corresponding responsibilities. The petitioner noted that such awareness is currently lacking, which essentially means that citizens are immersed in their rights without regard for their reciprocal duties.
Also, the petitioner emphasized the importance of the measures that should be taken for the governance of the recommendations made by the Justice J. S. Verma Committee. Education of citizens was a major area of its focus and the Committee’s report provided elaborate means of doing it. The petitioner also noted that the implementation of all these recommendations will greatly boost national integrity and social responsibility. This particular report provided actual specifications on how the core responsibilities will be incorporated into the school system to enrich society with moral principles of duty. These measures were described by the petitioner as desirable for nurturing a concerned and responsible population.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the respondent pointed out that the subject state has implemented several measures toward creating awareness of fundamental duties. Such efforts are the constitutional educational and public awareness programs to educate the citizens on their constitutional duties. In response, the respondent highlighted that the state is indeed making efforts to raise awareness and these existing measures prove that the state is serious about being instrumental in increasing the understanding of the basic duties of the citizens.
Furthermore, the respondent expressed the possibility of the non-implementation of all that was recommended by the Justice J. S. Verma Committee on the grounds of its infeasibility or impracticality. Although the respondent agreed that the recommendations are patriotic, their implementation subjectively needs to be analyzed. These recommendations cannot overrule practical issues like the availability of resources and or structures to implement these changes, hence there is the need to make these changes practical. The respondent supported the idea that the accomplishment of the recommendations would require proper planning and stepwise implementation in the existing educational and social frameworks.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI:
It was observed by the Supreme Court that they hope that the Central Government will take the implementation of the recommendations of the Justice J. S. Verma Committee as matters which require consideration very seriously. These recommendations were also a significant component to enhance the understanding and awareness of the citizens concerning the fundamental duties.
b. OBITER DICTA:
It was upon the premise of this doctrine that the court urged for the due implementation of rights with duties to transform the citizenry into responsible individuals. It underlined the general knowledge among citizens about their rights but lack of knowledge about their corresponding duties which is important for the smooth running of a society.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in the Hon’ble Shri Ranganath Mishra vs Union of India and Ors details the importance of spreading awareness about the rights and duties to maintain a correct parity between the two. The need for proper educational reforms and being carried out by awareness programs was also highlighted by the Supreme Court when it asked the central government to study and possibly act on the Justice JS Verma Committee. This case lays down the foundations for the encouragement of a responsible attitude to rights together with their enjoyment.
The priority of the court’s approach to the search for and definition of rights and duties is essential for preserving the integrity and stability of the nation and society as a whole. Thus, by directing the Central Government to begin moving towards the implementation of the proposed Committee, the court has provided the foundation for a more enlightened citizenry. It also bears the judiciary’s affirmative position in ensuring that the Constitution is not only recognized but also actively implemented.

J) REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred:
• The pivotal judgment of the Supreme Court of India is Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, [1986] 3 SCC 615:
This concerned the regulation of freedom of religion where the apex court found that students of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith cannot be forced to sing the national anthem if this is against their faith.