Question

Explain the Following:

Arguments of critics against Fundamental Duties.

Answer 1

Critics have raised several arguments against the inclusion of Fundamental Duties in the Indian Constitution. The key criticisms are as follows:

1. Non-Justiciable Nature: Critics argue that since Fundamental Duties are not legally enforceable, they lack practical value. Citizens cannot be penalised for not performing these duties, which makes them ineffective in compelling responsible behaviour.
2. Vague and Ambiguous Language: Some duties are worded too broadly or vaguely, making their interpretation subjective. This can lead to confusion or misuse, especially in legal or administrative contexts.
3. Redundancy: Critics believe that many of the duties are already implied in the Constitution or covered under existing laws, and hence their separate inclusion is unnecessary.
4. Possibility of Misuse: There is concern that vague duties could be misused by authorities to suppress dissent or target individuals under the guise of promoting nationalism or public order.
5. No Role for the State: Unlike Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV), which guide the government, Fundamental Duties focus solely on citizens, offering no clear obligations for the State to promote or facilitate these duties.
6. Political Motivation: The incorporation of Fundamental Duties during the Emergency period in 1976 has led critics to believe that their inclusion was politically motivated, aimed at curbing civil liberties and enforcing compliance.