Fundamental rights and duties

There is no such case is there for reference as per your query, buy you can anyway get clear of your doubts through the given information.

Fundamental Duties of the citizens of India mentioned in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. By the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, adopted in 1976, Fundamental Duties of the citizens have also been enumerated.

The fundamental duties enjoined on citizen under Article 51-A should also guide the legislative and executive actions of elected or non-elected institutions and organisations of the citizens including the municipal bodies.

Duties are observed by individuals as a result of dictates of the social system the environment in which one lives, under the influence of role models, or on account of punitive provisions of law.

It may be necessary to enact suitable legislation wherever necessary to require obedience of obligations by the citizens. If the existing laws are inadequate to enforce the needed discipline, the legislative vacuum needs to be filled. If legislation and judicial directions are available and still there are violations of duties by the citizens, this would call for other strategies for making them operational.

The legal utility of fundamental duties is similar to that of the directives; while the Directives are addressed to the state, so are the duties addressed to the citizens, without any legal sanction for their violation. The citizen, it is expected, should be his own monitor while exercising and enforcing his Fundamental rights. He should keep in mind that he owes the duties specified in Article 51-A to the State and if he does not care for the duties, he does not deserve the rights.

Thus, the duties as such are not legally enforceable in the Courts of law, but if a law has been made to prohibit any act or conduct in violation of the duties, it would be reasonable restriction on the relevant Fundamental Rights.

However, the fundamental Duties are not enforceable by mandamus or any other legal remedy.

The Fundamental Duties are defined as the moral obligations of all citizens to help promote a spirit of patriotism and to uphold the unity of India. These duties, set out in Part IV–A of the Constitution concern individuals and the nation.

Citizens are morally obligated by the Constitution to perform these duties. The Fundamental Duties are however, not legally enforceable, i.e. without any legal sanction in case of their violation or non-compliance.

There is a need for these duties to be obligatory for all citizens, subject to the State enforcing the same by means of a valid law, or else the law stands in a very disadvantageous position.

The Supreme Court has finally, issued directions to the State in this regard, with a view towards making the provisions effective and enabling a citizens to properly perform their duties properly. This project was an attempt to check the enforceability of the fundamental duties under the different statutes, which have been references to the Indian Constitution.

The court in the case of Javed vs. State of Haryana[13] held that the fundamental rights have to be read with fundamental duties which are provided in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution and with the directive principles of the state policy that are provided in Part IV of the Constitution.

Fundamental Rights and DPSP both cherished in the Indian Constitution together comprises the human rights of an individual. Generally DPSP’s are not enforceable in court of law but Fundamental Rights are, however when a state is trying to implement a DPSP there is a possibility of conflict between two. It is not important that always fundamental rights only prevail over DPSPs in a court of law. There has been a lot of contradiction between DPSPs and FRs in the past.  While parliament often attempt to claim the state's and DPSPs' superiority over Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court upheld individual rights as enshrined in the Constitution by issuing appropriate judgments. Let’s have a look on the history of these contradictions between the Court and the Parliament so that we can know the present stance on this issue.

In Re Kerala Education Bill(1957), the Supreme Court developed the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction to avoid a dispute between enforcing DPSPs and Fundamental Rights. According to this doctrine, there is no inherent dispute between FRs and DPSPs, and courts should try to give effect to both as much as possible when interpreting a statute i.e. should try to harmonize the two as far as possible. However the Supreme Court in the case of Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras(1951) held that DPSPs cannot override the provisions of Part III of the constitution i.e. DPSPs have to run subsidiary to the FRs. On this Parliament reacted by amending and changing a number of FRs that conflicted with DPSPs. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, ruled in the Golknath Case(1967) that parliament cannot amend the FRs to implement the DPSPs. The parliament then retaliated by introducing the constitution's 25th Amendment Act, which added Article 31(C) to Part III. There were two clauses in Article 31 C. Article 31 C contained two provisions:

a. If a law is made to give effect to DPSPs in Article 39(b) and Article 39(c) and in the process, the law violates Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31, then the law should not be declared as unconstitutional and void merely on this ground.

b. Any such law which contains the declaration that it is to give effect to DPSPs in Article 39(b) & Article 39(c) shall not be questioned in a court of law.

However Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati Case(1973) upheld that Parliament can amend any part of Constitution, but could not destroy Basic Structure of the Constitution and therefore the second clause of Article 31(C) was as declared as unconstitutional and void as it was against the Basic Structure of the Constitution i.e. Judicial Review. Later in its response in 1976, parliament passed the 42nd Amendment Act, which broadened the scope of above first provision of Article 31(C) by allowing any law to enact any of the DPSPs mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution, not just Article 39(b) or Article39(c). However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case(1980) ruled that this extension was unconstitutional and invalid.

After all these the present order of Precedence in a case there is a conflict between FR and DPSP is as follows.

-First The FRs except that of article 14 and article 19 will be given precedence

-Then DPSP of Art 39(b) and 39(c) will be given precedence

-After that FR in article 14 and 19 will be given precedence.

-And at the end rest of the DPSPs except that of Art 39(b) and 29(C) will be considered.