Holding

The Court directed the Central Government to consider the recommendations of the National Commission/Justice J.S. Verma Committee and to take appropriate steps for the education and awareness of citizens about fundamental duties as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

The petitioner, a former Supreme Court judge, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice seeking directions for the State to educate citizens about their fundamental duties, and the letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32. The Court appointed Shri K. Parasaran as amicus curiae and considered the recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution and the Justice J.S. Verma Committee on operationalising fundamental duties. The petition raised the question of revisiting the decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, but the Court limited its consideration to the issue of education on fundamental duties. Relying on the Commission’s report, the Court directed the Central Government to take note of the recommendations and to implement measures for public awareness and education on fundamental duties as expeditiously as possible. The petition was thereafter disposed without further adjudication on other matters raised.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can issue directions to the Union and State governments to educate citizens about fundamental duties under Article 32.
Whether the recommendations of the National Commission and the Justice J.S. Verma Committee on operationalising fundamental duties are binding on the Government.
Whether the decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala requires reconsideration in the context of fundamental duties.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32, s. Article 51A

Subjects

Fundamental dutiesEducation of citizensArticle 32Constitutional benchNational Commission reportJ.S. Verma CommitteeSupreme Court directionPublic interest litigationEpistolary jurisdiction

Judgment

HON'BLE SHRI RANGANATH MISHRA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JULY31,2003

[V.N. KHARE, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 32 and 51-A-Fundamental duties-Additions to and
implementation of-A letter. requesting the Supreme Court to issue directidns C
to State to educate citizens in fundamental duties-Treated as writ petition--
Recommendations of National Commission to review the working of the
Constitution accepting recommendations of J.S. Verma Committee on
operationalisation of fundamental duties of citizens-Held, since the
Government of India would take notice of the recommendations of the D
Commission/Committee, it would also consider the same in its right earnestness
and take appropriate steps for their implementation as expeditiously as
possible-Epistolary jurisdiction.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 239 of
1998. E
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

K. Parasaran, (AC), G. Umapathy, (AC) Prateek Jalan, Ms. Anil Katiyar,
P. Parmeswaran, Rajiv Mehta, Ms. Mohan Lal, Ms. Kriti Renu Mishra (NJ>),
Ranjan Mukherjee, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neel~m F
Sharma, Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharati Upadhyaya, V.N. Raghupathy, Sushil
Kumar Jain, (NP), KH. Nobin Singh, S.Wasim A. Qadri, S.K. Dwivedi, Dee11ak
Kumar Singh, Ajay K. Agrawal (NP), Ms. Chitra Markandaya (NP), Ashok
Mathur (NP), J.S. Attri, Addi. Adv. General for State of Himachal Pradesh,
Naresh K. Sharma (NP), K.R. Sasiprabu, G. Prakash (NP), Sanjay R. Hegl:le,
Satya Mitra, Anil K. Mishra, Satish K. Agnihotri, K. Ram Kumar (NP), Ms. G
· Krishna Sarma, Ms. Asha G. Nair, V.K. Sidatharan, Ms. A. Subhashini, V1G.
Pragasam, Kumar Rajesh Singh, 8.B. Singh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Monika
Bapna, Anil Shrivastav, S.V. Deshpande, S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, Praveen
Kumar Rai, Mahabir Singh (NP), Sanjay K. Shandilya, Ms. V.D. Khanna,
59 H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Ani Suhrawardy, P.N. Ramalingam, V.Balaji, A Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna
Mathur, S.S. Gulathi and R.S. Suri for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

A letter written by the petitioner herein to the Chief Justice of India
B requesting this Court to issue necessary directions to the State to educate its
citizen in the matter of fundamental duties so that a right balance may emerge
between rights and duties, was treated as a writ petition. This Court appointed
Shri K. Parasaran, Sr. Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

As the petition raised a question as to the correctness of a decision of
C this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kera/a, [1986] 3 SCC 615, requiring
reconsideration, the matter was directed to be listed before a Constitution
Bench by order dated 9th April, 200 l. However, a Constitution Bench by
order dated 21st November, 2001 recalled the order dated 19th February,
2001and9th April, 2001 and directed the matter to be placed before a Bench
D of three Judges. The matter has been placed before this Bench pursuant
thereto.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Amicus Curiae
brought to our notice the Report of the National Commission to Review the
Working of the Constitution wherein a report made by a Committee commonly
E known as 'Justice J.S. Verma Committee' on operationalization of fundamental
duties of citizens has been accepted and a strong suggestion has been made
for their early implementation. The Commission, inter alia, recommends :

"3. 40. 2 Education is not confined only to the time spent in schools
and colleges. Education begins at birth in the subconscious and
F continues till death. Anyone who says that he has nothing more to
learn is already brain-dead. It follows that the influences that play on
a child at home are of great importance. Parents should understand
that education begins at home, the examples they set, the environment
of enlightenment and tolerance that is necessary to produce good
citizens cannot be sub-contracted to formal schooling important though
G this is. Schemes should, therefore, be framed that include parents in
social activities that have as their objective the country's age-old
traditions, its Welcome to the persecuted of every faith, its virtues of
tolerance of and respect for all religions and a certain pride in
belonging to this land and in being considered as Indian. The highest
H office in our democracy is the office of citizen; this is not only a
HON'BLE SHRI RANGANATH MISHRA v. U.0.1. ,61

platitude, it must translate into reality. The distinction is not illusory. A
This country has given far too much indulgence to an attitude of
mind that acts on the question - what is there in it for me?

Education and the process of inculcating unselfishness and a sense of
obligation to one's fellowmen should inspire the question - where
does my duty lie ? The transformation has the potential to make our B
nation strong, invincible and able to command the respect of the
... . world .

3. 40. 3 (i) The Commission recommends that the first and forell)ost
step required by the Union and State Governments is to sensitise the
people and to create general awareness of the provisions, of C
fundamental duties amongst the citizens on the lines recommended
by the Justice Verma Committee on the subject. Consideration should
be given to the ways and means by which Fundamen~al Duties could
be popularized and made effective; (ii) right to freedom of religion
and right of minorities and fellow citizens respected; (iii) reform of D
the whole process of education is an immediate but immense need,
as is the need to free it from governmental or political control; it is
only through education that will power to adhere to our Fundamental
\ Duties as citizens can be inculcated; and (iv) duty to vote at elections,
actively participate in the democratic process of governance and to
pay taxes should be included in article SIA ..... " E
In its recommendations, Justice Verma Committee in Chapter entitled
"Salient Recommendations" under the heading 'Operationalization Overview'
observes as under :

"Duties are observed by individuals as a result of dictates of the F
social system and the environment in which one lives, under the
influence of role models, or on account of punitive provision of law.
It may be necessary to enact suitable legislation wherever necessary
to require obedience of obligations by the citizens. If the exi~ting
laws are inadequate to enforce the needed discipline, the legislative
vacuum needs to be filled. If legislation and judicial directions are G
available and still there are violations of Fundamental Duties by the
citizens, this would call for other strategies for making them
operational.

The desired enforceability can be better achieved by providing H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A not merely for legal sanctions but also combining it with social
sanctions and to facilitate the performance of the task through exemplar
role models. The element of compulsion in legal sanction when
combined with the natural urge for obedience of the norms to attract
social approbation would make the citizens willing participants in the
exercise. The real task, therefore, is to devise methods which are a
B combination of these aspects to ensure a ready acceptance of the
programme by the general citizenry and youth, in particular.

The Committee is strongly of the view that the significance of
.-
dignity of the individual in all its facets and the objective of overall
development of the personality of the individual must be emphasized
c in the curriculum at all the stages of education. This requires
consciousness of citizenship values which are a combination of rights
and duties, and together give rise to social responsibilities. Methods
must be devised to operationalize this concept as a constitutional
value in our educational curriculum and in co-curricular activities, in
D schools and colleges."

Various recommendations have ·been made in the said report as regards
the mode and manner to be adopted for generating awareness and
consciousness of the citizens towards their fundamental duties.

E Keeping in view the fact that the Government of India would take
notice of the recommendations of the aforesaid Commission/Committee, we
agree with Shri K. Parasaran that the same may be considered in its right
earnestness by the Central Government and we accordingly direct it to do so
as also to take appropriate steps for their implementation as expeditiously as
possible.
F
As presently advised, we need not go into the other questions raised in
this writ petition. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.

G We record our appreciation for the valuable services rendered by the
learned Amicus Curiae Shri K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. and Shri G. Umapathay,
Adv. in this matter.

R.P. Petition disposed of.