In a judgment, Chandra Bhavan v. State of Mysore AIR, 1970 SC 2042, upholding the constitutionality of the Minimum Wages Act Justice Hegde pointed out, “It is a fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties. The provisions in Part IV enable the Legislatures to impose various duties on the citizens. The mandate of our Constitution is to build a welfare society and that object may be achieved to the extent the Directive principles are implemented by legislation.”

This was even before the the 1976 Amendment Act which introduced Part IV A that deals with Fundamental Duties into the Constitution. According to this amendment, under Article 51 A of the Constitution, it shall be the duty of every citizens of India:

1. to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem;
2. to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom;
3. to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;
4. to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;
5. 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;
6. to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;
7. to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;
8. to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;
9. to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;
10. 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.

According to Shubhankar Dam, the use of the word “fundamental” appears significant especially in the light of the opinion of Sikri C.J. in Keshavananda Bharati v State of Kerela, (1973) 4 SCC 223. The learned Justice held:

I have referred to the variation in the language of the various articles dealing with the question of amendment or repeal in detail because our Constitution was drafted very carefully and I must presume that every word was chosen carefully and should have its proper meaning. I make this principle on the observations of the United States Supreme Court in Holmes v Jennison (10 L. Ed. 579) and quoted with approval in Williams v US (77 L. Ed. 1372) – ‘In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added…’

In Minerva Mills v Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625, Bhagwati J. said:

A rule imposing an obligation or duty would not therefore cease to be a rule of law because there is no regular judicial or quasi-judicial machinery to enforce its command. Otherwise the conventions of the Constitution and even rules of international law would no longer be liable to be regarded as rules of law. This view is clearly supported by the opinion of Prof. A.L. Goodhart who while commenting upon this point says, ‘I have always regarded that if a principle is recognised as binding on the legislature, then it can be correctly described as a legal rule even if there is no court that can enforce it.’

Quoting this, Shubhankar Dam points out that ‘while fundamental rights have been made specifically enforceable and what are known as Directive Principles of State Policy specifically non-enforceable, there is no provision that restricts the enforceability of fundamental duties. In the absence of any such specific limitation,12 fundamental duties may be regarded as directly enforceable’.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution which was appointed by the Government on February 22, 2000 under the Chairmanship of M.N. Venkatachalaiah, a retired Chief Justice of India, submitted its report to the NDA Government in March 31, 2002. It inter alia suggested that Fundamental Duties be enlarged so as to accelerate the socio-economic development of the people without tampering with the basic structure of the Constitution.