Fundamental duties of every person domiciled in India under Constitution of India
Supreme
Court in “Aishat Shifa vs The State Of Karnataka”
Rawls in
his ‘A Theory of Justice’ writes: “… Justice is the first virtue of social
institutions, as truth is of system of thoughts…” “…Therefore in a just society
the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled, the rights secured by
justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social
interest… ”
=====================
Supreme
Court in “Kaushal Kishor vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh”
Fundamental
Duties:
Every right
engulfs and incorporates a duty to respect another’s right and secure mutual
compatibility and conviviality of the individuals based on collective harmony,
resulting in social order. The concept of fraternity under the Constitution
expects every citizen to respect the dignity of the other. Mutual respect is
the fulcrum of fraternity that assures dignity. In the context of
constitutional fraternity, fundamental duties engrafted under Article 51-A of
the Constitution gain significance. Sub-clause (c), (e) and (j) of Article 51-A
of the Constitution which are relevant to these cases read as follows:
“Article
51-A. Fundamental Duties- .—It shall be the duty of every citizen of India—
(c) to
uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
(e) to
promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of
India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities;
to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
(j) to
strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity
so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and
achievement;”
Fundamental
duties also constitute core Constitutional values for good citizenship in a
democracy such as ours. The duties enumerated above, enjoin all citizens with
the obligations of promoting fraternity, harmony, unity, collective welfare
etc. Fundamental duties have a keen bond of sorority with the Constitutional
goals and must therefore be recognised not merely as Constitutional norms or
precepts but as obligations, co-relative to rights. In short, the permissible
content of the right to freedom of speech and expression, ought to be tested on
the touchstone of fraternity and fundamental duties as envisaged under our
Constitution.
Chakmas
in North East India:
In National
Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742, this
Court considered a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution,
pertaining to the threats held out by the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’
Union, to force Chakmas out of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It was the case
of the Petitioner therein that a large number of Chakmas from erstwhile East
Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were displaced by the Kaptai Hydel Power Project in
1964. They had taken shelter in Assam and Tripura. Most of them were settled in
these States and became Indian citizens in due course of time. Since a large
number of refugees had taken shelter in Assam, the State Government had
expressed its inability to rehabilitate all of them and requested assistance in
this regard from certain other States. As a result of such consultations
between the North Eastern States, some population of Chakmas began residing in
Arunachal Pradesh. It was also stated that many of such persons had made
representations for the grant of citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the
Citizenship Act, 1955, however, no decision was communicated in this regard. In
the interim, relations between citizens residing in Arunachal Pradesh and the
Chakmas deteriorated and the latter were being subjected to repressive measures
with a view to forcibly expel them from the State. In that background, a writ
petition came to be filed, alleging, inter-alia, unwillingness on the part of
the State to contain the hostile situation. In that background, this Court
issued a writ of mandamus, inter-alia, directing the State of Arunachal Pradesh
to ensure that the life and liberty of every Chakma residing in the State is
protected, and any attempt by organised groups to evict or drive them out of the
State is repelled, if necessary, by requisitioning the service of para-
military or police force. It was also directed that the application made by
Chakmas for the grant of citizenship under Section 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship
Act, 1955 be considered, and pending such consideration, no Chakma shall be
evicted from the State. It is to be noted that in the said case, this Court
cited the Fundamental Rights of persons under Article 21 in directing the State
to protect the rights of Chakmas from threats by private actors. The said
directions were issued in the backdrop of the State’s inaction to mobilise the
available machinery to contain the hostile situation and such inaction had or
could have had the effect of depriving Chakmas of their right to life and personal
liberties. It was in that context that this Court declared that the State is
bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or
otherwise.
==================
============
Comments
Post a Comment