English · हिन्दी · తెలుగు · தமிழ் · മലയാളം · मराठी · ಕನ್ನಡ

Directive Principles versus Fundamental Rights, and the Fundamental Duties

ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಣೆ

Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties · Part 2 / 2 · Fact-checked on 19 October 2026 · how we check

Written with AI from the sources listed at the bottom of this page, then fact-checked by a separate AI.

How the Directive Principles differ from the Fundamental Rights, the chain of cases and amendments from Champakam to Minerva Mills and Article 31C, the 2024 ruling on Article 39(b), and the eleven Fundamental Duties of Article 51A: origin, content and enforcement.

Each idea is explained first in Kannada (ಕನ್ನಡ), ending with the English and Hindi exam terms, followed by the same point in exam English. UPSC Prelims is in English or Hindi, so understand it in Kannada and revise it in English.

ಮೊದಲ ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜ್ಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ತತ್ವಗಳು ಸರ್ಕಾರದಿಂದ ಏನು ಬಯಸುತ್ತವೆ, ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು ಅವನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತಂದವು ಎಂದು ನೋಡಿದೆವು. ಈಗ ಎರಡು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳು. ಒಂದು: ಒಂದು ತತ್ವ ಒಂದು ಕಡೆ, ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಕಡೆ ಎಳೆದರೆ ಯಾವುದು ಗೆಲ್ಲುತ್ತದೆ? ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅಮ್ಮ 'ಮಕ್ಕಳ ಓದು ಮುಖ್ಯ' ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾಳೆ, ಅಪ್ಪ 'ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬರ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಮುಖ್ಯ' ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾನೆ — ಅಂಥ ಎಳೆದಾಟ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದಲ್ಲೂ ಇದೆ. ಎರಡು: ಭಾಗ 4A ಯ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳು ಯಾವುವು, ಎಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಬಂದವು, ಎಷ್ಟರಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸಬಹುದು? ಕೊನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು, ತತ್ವಗಳು, ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕ ಇಟ್ಟು ಹೋಲಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ. (→ English: Directive Principles of State Policy · Fundamental Rights · Fundamental Duties · हिन्दी: राज्य की नीति के निदेशक तत्व · मूल अधिकार · मूल कर्तव्य)

In exam EnglishPart 1 of this chapter set out what the Directive Principles of State Policy ask of the State and how laws have carried them out. This part takes up two questions that Prelims asks again and again. First, what happens when a Directive Principle and one of the Fundamental Rights pull in opposite directions? Second, what are the Fundamental Duties in Part IVA, where did they come from and how far can they be enforced? The part closes with a side-by-side comparison of rights, principles and duties.

ಎರಡೂ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾಲುದಾರರಂತೆ ಬರೆಯಲಾಯಿತು, ಆದರೆ ಸಾಧನಗಳು ಬೇರೆ. ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ಧಕ್ಕೆಯಾದರೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ (32) ಅಥವಾ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ (226) ಹೋಗಬಹುದು; ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕಡಿಮೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಕಾನೂನು ಆ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಅಸಿಂಧು (13). ರಾಜ್ಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ತತ್ವಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ ವಿಧಿ 37ರಂತೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗದ ತತ್ವಗಳು: 'ಈ ತತ್ವ ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತಾ' ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಆದೇಶಿಸಲಾಗದು. ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿ 'ಇದನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಡ' ಎಂಬ ನಿಷೇಧಗಳು; ತತ್ವಗಳು 'ಈ ದಿಕ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗು' ಎಂಬ ಗುರಿಗಳು. ಉದಾಹರಣೆ: ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಕಾರಣವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ನಿಷೇಧಿಸಿದರೆ ಸಂಪಾದಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಗೆಲ್ಲುತ್ತಾನೆ; ಅದೇ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನಿರುದ್ಯೋಗಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಕೊಡದಿದ್ದರೆ (41) ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಒತ್ತಾಯಿಸಲಾಗದು. (→ English: Fundamental Rights · Directive Principles of State Policy · non-justiciable · हिन्दी: मूल अधिकार · राज्य की नीति के निदेशक तत्व · न्यायालय द्वारा अप्रवर्तनीय)

In exam EnglishThe two Parts were written as partners, but they work with different tools. Fundamental Rights are justiciable: a person whose right is violated can move the Supreme Court under Article 32 or a High Court under Article 226, and Article 13 makes a law that takes away or abridges a right void to that extent. Directive Principles of State Policy are non-justiciable under Article 37: no court can order the State to carry one out, and no law can be struck down merely because it ignores one. Many rights are negative in form, telling the State what it must not do, while the principles are positive, telling it what to aim for. Suppose a State bans a newspaper without reason: the editor can have the ban quashed. Suppose the same State provides no work to the unemployed, as Article 41 asks: no court can compel it.

ಮೊದಲ ಘರ್ಷಣೆ ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷದೊಳಗೇ ಬಂತು. ಮದ್ರಾಸ್ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ, ಎಂಜಿನಿಯರಿಂಗ್ ಕಾಲೇಜು ಸೀಟುಗಳನ್ನು ಆದೇಶದ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಮುದಾಯವಾರು ಹಂಚಿತು. ಚಂಪಕಂ ದೊರೈರಾಜನ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ (1951) ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಅದನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಿತು: ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇವಲ ಧರ್ಮ, ಜನಾಂಗ, ಜಾತಿ, ಭಾಷೆಯ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರವೇಶ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಬಾರದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತದೆ 29(2). ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ತತ್ವಗಳು ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ಅನುಗುಣವಾಗಿ, ಅವುಗಳ ಅಧೀನವಾಗಿ ನಡೆಯಬೇಕು ಎಂದಿತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ. ಸಂಸತ್ತು ತಕ್ಷಣ ಮೊದಲ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ (1951) ಮಾಡಿ 15(4) ಸೇರಿಸಿತು — ಹಿಂದುಳಿದ ವರ್ಗಗಳು, SC, ST ಗಳಿಗೆ ವಿಶೇಷ ಏರ್ಪಾಡು ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಅದೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ 31A, 31B ಮತ್ತು ಒಂಬತ್ತನೇ ಅನುಸೂಚಿ ತಂದು ಭೂಸುಧಾರಣಾ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳಿಗೆ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿತು. ಕ್ರಿಕೆಟ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂಪೈರ್ 'ನೋ ಬಾಲ್' ಎಂದರೆ ಮಂಡಳಿಯೇ ನಿಯಮ ಬದಲಿಸಿದಂತೆ — ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ತೀರ್ಪಿಗೆ ಸಂಸತ್ತು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಉತ್ತರ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿತು. (→ English: Supreme Court · Amendment · Ninth Schedule · हिन्दी: उच्चतम न्यायालय · संशोधन · नौवीं अनुसूची)

In exam EnglishThe first clash came within a year. The Madras government had divided seats in its medical and engineering colleges among communities by a government order. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) the Supreme Court struck the order down as a breach of Article 29(2), which forbids denying admission to a State-maintained institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste or language. The Court said the Directive Principles cannot override the Fundamental Rights; they must conform to them and run as subsidiary to them. Parliament replied with the First Amendment (1951), which inserted Article 15(4), permitting special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The same Amendment added Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform laws, passed to carry out Article 39, from challenge as violations of Fundamental Rights.

ಗೋಲಕನಾಥ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ (1967) ಹನ್ನೊಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳು 6–5 ಬಹುಮತದಿಂದ 'ಸಂಸತ್ತು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು ಕಸಿಯಲಾಗದು, ಕಡಿಮೆ ಮಾಡಲಾಗದು' ಎಂದರು. ಕಲ್ಯಾಣ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳಿಗೆ ಅಂಥ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಗಳೇ ಬೇಕಾಗಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ದಾರಿ ಮುಚ್ಚಿದಂತಾಯಿತು. 1971ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನ ಉತ್ತರ: 24ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ — ಭಾಗ 3 ಸೇರಿ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ತಿದ್ದಬಹುದು. 25ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ 31C ಸೇರಿಸಿತು: 39(b), (c) ತತ್ವಗಳನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವ ಕಾನೂನು 14, 19, 31ಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಅಸಿಂಧುವಾಗದು; 'ಈ ಕಾನೂನು ಆ ನೀತಿಗಾಗಿಯೇ' ಎಂಬ ಘೋಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಲಾಗದು. ಅಂದರೆ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಎರಡು ತತ್ವಗಳು ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗಿಂತ ಮೇಲೆ ಬಂದವು. ಊರ ಕೆರೆಯ ನೀರು ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಹಂಚಬೇಕು, ಕೆಲವರ ಬಳಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ಕೂಡಬಾರದು — ಇದೇ 39(b), 39(c)ಯ ಭಾವ. (→ English: Amendment · हिन्दी: संशोधन)

In exam EnglishThe balance shifted in I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where eleven judges, by six to five, held that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to take away or abridge a Fundamental Right. Since many welfare measures depended on exactly such amendments, the ruling seemed to block the road to the principles. Parliament responded in 1971. The 24th Amendment declared that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, Part III included. The 25th Amendment inserted Article 31C: a law giving effect to the principles in Article 39(b) or (c) could not be held void for being inconsistent with Article 14, 19 or 31, and no court could question a law's declaration that it was made to give effect to that policy. For the first time two Directive Principles were placed above Fundamental Rights. Article 39(b) concerns sharing the community's material resources for the common good, and Article 39(c) preventing wealth from concentrating harmfully.

ಕೇಶವಾನಂದ ಭಾರತಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ (1973) ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ 24ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯನ್ನು ಎತ್ತಿಹಿಡಿದು ಗೋಲಕನಾಥ್ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ತಳ್ಳಿಹಾಕಿತು, ಆದರೆ 'ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರದಿಂದ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಮೂಲ ರಚನೆ ನಾಶಮಾಡಲಾಗದು' ಎಂದಿತು. 31C ಯನ್ನು ಎರಡು ತುಂಡುಗಳಾಗಿ ನೋಡಿತು. ಮೊದಲ ತುಂಡು — 39(b), (c) ಕಾನೂನುಗಳಿಗೆ 14, 19, 31ರಿಂದ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ — ಉಳಿಯಿತು. ಎರಡನೇ ತುಂಡು — ಶಾಸಕಾಂಗದ ಘೋಷಣೆಯೇ ಅಂತಿಮ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ನೋಡಬಾರದು — ರದ್ದಾಯಿತು; ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಅದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಪರಾಮರ್ಶೆಯನ್ನೇ ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಬರೆದ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಯೇ ತನ್ನ ಉತ್ತರಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗೆ ಅಂಕ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ಹೇಗೆ? ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಇಂದಿಗೂ 'ಈ ಕಾನೂನು ನಿಜವಾಗಿ 39(b), (c)ಗಾಗಿಯೇ' ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಬಹುದು. ನಂತರ 44ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ (1978) ಆಸ್ತಿ ಹಕ್ಕನ್ನು (31) ಭಾಗ 3ರಿಂದ ತೆಗೆಯಿತು; ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಇಂದು 31C ರಕ್ಷಣೆ 14, 19ರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಮಾತ್ರ. (→ English: basic structure · judicial review · हिन्दी: मूल ढांचा · न्यायिक पुनर्विलोकन)

In exam EnglishIn Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) the Court upheld the 24th Amendment and overruled Golaknath, but held that the amending power cannot be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. On Article 31C it treated the provision as two halves. The first half, shielding laws for Article 39(b) and (c) from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31, was upheld. The second half, which made the legislature's own declaration final and shut out the courts, was struck down: it would have let a legislature certify its own law and so remove judicial review. In practice this means that when a law claims the protection of Article 31C, a court can still examine whether the law really gives effect to the principles in Article 39(b) or (c). The right to property in Article 31 was later removed from Part III by the 44th Amendment (1978), so Article 31C today protects such laws against Articles 14 and 19.

42ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ (1976) ಇನ್ನೂ ಮುಂದೆ ಹೋಯಿತು: 39(b), (c) ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲ, ಭಾಗ 4ರ ಯಾವುದೇ ತತ್ವವನ್ನು ಜಾರಿಗೆ ತರುವ ಕಾನೂನಿಗೂ 14, 19, 31ರಿಂದ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಸಿಗುವಂತೆ 31C ಬದಲಿಸಿತು. ಮಿನರ್ವ ಮಿಲ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ (1980) ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಈ ವಿಸ್ತರಣೆಯನ್ನು ರದ್ದುಪಡಿಸಿತು. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವಾದ: ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಭಾಗ 3 ಮತ್ತು ಭಾಗ 4ರ ನಡುವಿನ ಸಮತೋಲನದ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿಂತಿದೆ; ಗುರಿ (ಭಾಗ 4) ತಲುಪಬೇಕು, ಆದರೆ ದಾರಿ (ಭಾಗ 3) ಬಿಡಬಾರದು. ಎತ್ತಿನ ಬಂಡಿಗೆ ಎರಡು ಚಕ್ರ — ಒಂದು ತೆಗೆದರೆ ಬಂಡಿ ಓಡದು. ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು–ತತ್ವಗಳ ಸಮತೋಲನವೇ ಒಂದು ಮೂಲ ಲಕ್ಷಣ. ಫಲಿತಾಂಶ: 31C ಕೇಶವಾನಂದ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲೇ, ಅಂದರೆ 39(b), (c)ಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಉಳಿದಿದೆ. (→ English: Amendment · Supreme Court · हिन्दी: संशोधन · उच्चतम न्यायालय)

In exam EnglishThe 42nd Amendment (1976) went much further. It rewrote Article 31C so that a law giving effect to any or all of the principles in Part IV, not only Article 39(b) and (c), would be safe from challenge under Articles 14, 19 and 31. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) the Supreme Court struck this extension down. The Court reasoned that the Constitution rests on a balance between Part III and Part IV: the goals of Part IV are to be reached by the means Part III permits, not by discarding those means. Giving every principle an overriding status would wipe out the protection of Articles 14 and 19 for a vast range of laws, and the harmony and balance between rights and principles is itself a basic feature. The result is that Article 31C survives in the form approved in Kesavananda, covering only Article 39(b) and (c).

39(b)ಯ ಅರ್ಥ ಮತ್ತೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಬಂತು — ಪ್ರಾಪರ್ಟಿ ಓನರ್ಸ್ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಷನ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣ, ಒಂಬತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳ ಪೀಠ, 5 ನವೆಂಬರ್ 2024. ಮುಂಬೈಯ ಹಳೆಯ, ಅಪಾಯಕಾರಿ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳನ್ನು ದುರಸ್ತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮರುನಿರ್ಮಾಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ವಶಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಅವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿದ ಮಹಾರಾಷ್ಟ್ರದ ವಸತಿ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ವಿವಾದ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ: ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಖಾಸಗಿ ಆಸ್ತಿಯೂ 'ಸಮುದಾಯದ ಭೌತಿಕ ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲ'ವೇ? 1977ರಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಅಯ್ಯರ್ 'ಹೌದು' ಎಂದಿದ್ದರು, ನಂತರದ ತೀರ್ಪುಗಳು ಅದನ್ನೇ ಆಧರಿಸಿದವು. ಬಹುಮತ ಅದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಲಿಲ್ಲ: ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ ಹಿತ್ತಲಿನ ತರಕಾರಿ ಮಡಿ ಊರಿನ ಸಾಮೂಹಿಕ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲ; ಆದರೆ ಇಡೀ ಊರು ಅವಲಂಬಿಸಿರುವ ಏಕೈಕ ಬಾವಿ ಒಬ್ಬನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಮಾತು. ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲದ ಸ್ವರೂಪ, ಕೊರತೆ, ಸಮುದಾಯದ ಕ್ಷೇಮದ ಮೇಲಿನ ಪರಿಣಾಮ, ಖಾಸಗಿ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೇಂದ್ರೀಕರಣ — ಇವುಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ನಿರ್ಧಾರ. ಕೇಶವಾನಂದ ರೂಪದ 31C ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದೂ ಪೀಠ ಹೇಳಿತು. (→ English: material resources of the community · हिन्दी: समुदाय के भौतिक संसाधन)

In exam EnglishThe meaning of Article 39(b) came back before the Court in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, decided by a bench of nine judges on 5 November 2024. The case arose from a Maharashtra housing law that let the State acquire old, unsafe buildings in Mumbai for repair and reconstruction. The question was whether every privately owned resource counts as a 'material resource of the community'. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer had taken that wide view in a 1977 opinion, and later decisions had leaned on it. The majority rejected the wide view: owning something privately does not by itself make it a resource of the community, though a particular private resource may qualify, depending on factors such as the nature of the resource, its scarcity, its effect on the well-being of the community and how far it is concentrated in private hands. The bench also held that Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda, remains in force.

ಮೂಲ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿದ್ದವು, ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. 1976ರಲ್ಲಿ, ತುರ್ತು ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ಪಕ್ಷ ಸರ್ದಾರ್ ಸ್ವರಣ್ ಸಿಂಗ್ ನೇತೃತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮಿತಿ ರಚಿಸಿತು; ಅದು ನಾಗರಿಕರ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದು ಅಧ್ಯಾಯ ಶಿಫಾರಸು ಮಾಡಿತು. 42ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ (1976) ಭಾಗ 4A ಮತ್ತು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದೇ ವಿಧಿ 51A ಸೇರಿಸಿ ಹತ್ತು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟಿತು. ಸಮಿತಿ ಎಂಟು ಹೇಳಿತ್ತು, ಸಂಸತ್ತು ಹತ್ತು ಒಪ್ಪಿತು; ಪಾಲಿಸದಿದ್ದರೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ಎಂಬ ಸಲಹೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಒಪ್ಪಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲೇ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಇಡುವ ಕಲ್ಪನೆ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಸೋವಿಯತ್ ಒಕ್ಕೂಟದ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದಿಂದ ಬಂದದ್ದು ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. 86ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ (2002) ಹನ್ನೊಂದನೇ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ (k) ಸೇರಿಸಿತು — ಅದೇ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 21A ಅಡಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣವನ್ನು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕಾಗಿಸಿತು: ಆರರಿಂದ ಹದಿನಾಲ್ಕು ವರ್ಷದ ಮಗುವಿಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣದ ಅವಕಾಶ ಕೊಡುವುದು ಪೋಷಕರ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ. ಶಾಲೆಯನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು, ಮಗುವನ್ನು ಶಾಲೆಗೆ ಕಳಿಸುವುದು ಮನೆಯವರ ಕೆಲಸ — ಹಕ್ಕು ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ಜೋಡಿಯಾಗಿ. (→ English: Amendment · Fundamental Duties · हिन्दी: संशोधन · मूल कर्तव्य)

In exam EnglishThe original Constitution listed rights but no duties. In 1976, during the Emergency, the Congress party set up a committee under Sardar Swaran Singh, which recommended a chapter on the duties of citizens. The 42nd Amendment (1976) acted on the idea by inserting Part IVA, a single Article, 51A, listing ten Fundamental Duties. The committee had proposed eight; Parliament adopted ten and did not accept its suggestion that failure to follow them could be punished. The idea of placing duties beside rights in a constitution is usually traced to the constitution of the former USSR. The 86th Amendment (2002) added an eleventh duty, clause (k), in the same Act that made education a Fundamental Right under Article 21A: a parent or guardian is to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between six and fourteen years of age.

51A 'ಭಾರತದ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬ ನಾಗರಿಕನ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ' ಎಂದು ಆರಂಭವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಹನ್ನೊಂದು ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಗುಂಪುಗಳಾಗಿ ನೆನಪಿಡಬಹುದು. ದೇಶ ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಚಿಹ್ನೆಗಳು: ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಪಾಲನೆ, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಧ್ವಜ–ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗೀತೆಗೆ ಗೌರವ (a); ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯ ಹೋರಾಟದ ಆದರ್ಶಗಳು (b); ಸಾರ್ವಭೌಮತ್ವ, ಏಕತೆ, ಅಖಂಡತೆ (c); ಕರೆದರೆ ದೇಶರಕ್ಷಣೆ, ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಸೇವೆ (d). ಸಮಾಜ: ಧರ್ಮ, ಭಾಷೆ, ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಭೇದ ಮೀರಿ ಸಹೋದರತ್ವ, ಮಹಿಳೆಯರ ಘನತೆಗೆ ಕುಂದು ತರುವ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳ ತ್ಯಾಗ (e); ಸಮ್ಮಿಶ್ರ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಯ ಪರಂಪರೆ (f). ಪ್ರಕೃತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಜೀವನ: ಪರಿಸರ, ಜೀವಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕರುಣೆ (g); ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಆಸ್ತಿ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ, ಹಿಂಸೆ ತ್ಯಾಗ (i) — ಬಸ್ಸಿನ ಗಾಜು ಒಡೆಯುವುದೂ ಈ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ವಿರುದ್ಧವೇ. ಮನಸ್ಸು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ: ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಮನೋಭಾವ (h), ಎಲ್ಲದರಲ್ಲೂ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠತೆ (j). ಕೊನೆಯದು (k) ಪೋಷಕರ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ — ಅಂದರೆ ಪ್ರತಿ ನಾಗರಿಕನಿಗೆ ಹತ್ತು, ಪೋಷಕರಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಹೆಚ್ಚು. (→ English: Constitution · citizen · हिन्दी: संविधान · नागरिक)

In exam EnglishArticle 51A opens with the words 'It shall be the duty of every citizen of India', and its eleven clauses are easier to hold in groups. Four concern the nation: respect for the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem (a), the noble ideals of the freedom struggle (b), the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India (c), and defending the country and rendering national service when called upon (d). Two concern society: common brotherhood across religious, linguistic and regional or sectional divides, with the renunciation of practices derogatory to the dignity of women (e), and the rich heritage of the composite culture (f). Two concern nature and public life: protecting the natural environment with compassion for living creatures (g), and safeguarding public property and abjuring violence (i). Two concern mind and effort: the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform (h), and excellence in all spheres (j). The last, (k), is the education duty of a parent or guardian, so every citizen carries ten duties and parents one more. The table below gives each clause.

The eleven Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)
Clause	Duty of every citizen	Group
(a)	Abide by the Constitution; respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem	Nation
(b)	Cherish and follow the noble ideals of the national struggle for freedom	Nation
(c)	Uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India	Nation
(d)	Defend the country and render national service when called upon	Nation
(e)	Promote harmony and common brotherhood; renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women	Society
(f)	Value and preserve the rich heritage of the composite culture	Society
(g)	Protect and improve the natural environment; have compassion for living creatures	Nature and public life
(h)	Develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform	Mind and effort
(i)	Safeguard public property and abjure violence	Nature and public life
(j)	Strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity	Mind and effort
(k)	Parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child aged six to fourteen (86th Amendment, 2002)	Education

ತತ್ವಗಳಂತೆಯೇ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳೂ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗದ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳು: ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಅವಕ್ಕೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷೆ ಇಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ, 'ಇವನಿಂದ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ಪಾಲಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿ' ಎಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಕೇಳಲಾಗದು. ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ: ಕೆಲವು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು ವಿದೇಶಿಯರಿಗೂ ಇವೆ, ಆದರೆ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳು ನಾಗರಿಕರಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ. ಆದರೂ ಅವು ಕಾಗದದ ಹುಲಿಗಳಲ್ಲ — ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳು ಬೆನ್ನಿಗಿವೆ: ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಗೌರವ ಅವಮಾನ ತಡೆ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1971 (ಧ್ವಜ, ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಅವಮಾನ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರಗೀತೆ ಹಾಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅಡ್ಡಿ ಶಿಕ್ಷಾರ್ಹ); ವನ್ಯಜೀವಿ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣಾ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1972, ಅರಣ್ಯ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣಾ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 1980; ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ 2009. ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಜೆ.ಎಸ್. ವರ್ಮಾ ಸಮಿತಿ (1999) ಇಂಥ ಕಾನೂನುಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ, ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಕಲಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿತು. ಒಂದು ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಮೇಲಿನ ನಿರ್ಬಂಧ ಸಮಂಜಸವೇ ಎಂದು ತೀರ್ಮಾನಿಸುವಾಗ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳೂ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸುತ್ತವೆ. (→ English: non-justiciable · Fundamental Rights · हिन्दी: न्यायालय द्वारा अप्रवर्तनीय · मूल अधिकार)

In exam EnglishLike the principles, the duties are non-justiciable: the Constitution attaches no penalty to them, and no court can be asked to enforce one directly. And while several Fundamental Rights protect every person, foreigners included, the duties bind citizens only. They are not empty, though, because ordinary laws back several of them. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 punishes insults to the National Flag and the Constitution and the prevention of the singing of the National Anthem; the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 protect wild life and forests; and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 carries out the right to which clause (k) is the counterpart. A committee chaired by Justice J.S. Verma (1999) identified such existing laws and suggested how the duties could be taught and made better known. Courts also refer to the duties when judging whether a restriction on a right is reasonable, since a law that helps citizens perform a duty is likely to serve a legitimate public purpose.

ಮೂರೂ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ನಾಗರಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ನಡುವಿನ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. ಭಾಗ 3 ಸರ್ಕಾರವನ್ನು ನಿಯಂತ್ರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಗೊಳಿಸಬಹುದು; ಭಾಗ 4 ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ದಾರಿ ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ, ಕಾನೂನು, ಬಜೆಟ್, ಮತದಾರರ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಮೂಲಕ ಜಾರಿಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ; ಭಾಗ 4A ನಾಗರಿಕನಿಗೆ ತನ್ನ ಪಾಲು ಮಾಡಲು ಹೇಳುತ್ತದೆ, ಕಾನೂನು ಇರುವಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ಜಾರಿಯಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಮನೆ ನಡೆಯಲು ಮನೆಯ ನಿಯಮಗಳು (ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು), ಮನೆಯ ಗುರಿಗಳು (ತತ್ವಗಳು), ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬರ ಕೆಲಸ (ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳು) — ಮೂರೂ ಬೇಕು. ಘರ್ಷಣೆಯ ಕಥೆ ಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ: ಚಂಪಕಂ → ಮೊದಲ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ → ಗೋಲಕನಾಥ್ → 24, 25ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ, 31C → ಕೇಶವಾನಂದ → 42ನೇ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ → ಮಿನರ್ವ ಮಿಲ್ಸ್. 2024ರ ತೀರ್ಪು ತೋರಿಸುವುದು: ರಾಜ್ಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ತತ್ವಗಳು ಎಂಬುದರ ಅರ್ಥ ಇನ್ನೂ ರೂಪುಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಕೋಷ್ಟಕ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳು, ತತ್ವಗಳು, ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕ ಇಡುತ್ತದೆ. (→ English: Directive Principles of State Policy · Fundamental Rights · Fundamental Duties · हिन्दी: राज्य की नीति के निदेशक तत्व · मूल अधिकार · मूल कर्तव्य)

In exam EnglishTaken together, the three Parts describe the whole bargain between a citizen and the State. Part III limits the State and can be enforced in court; Part IV directs the State and is carried out through laws, budgets and the verdict of voters; Part IVA asks the citizen to do his share and is enforced only where a law says so. The history of the clash between the first two reads as a chain: Champakam (principles subordinate), the First Amendment (rights amended), Golaknath (rights beyond amendment), the 24th and 25th Amendments and Article 31C (two principles given priority), Kesavananda (basic structure; Article 31C partly upheld), the 42nd Amendment (all principles given priority) and Minerva Mills (balance restored). The 2024 ruling on Article 39(b) shows that the meaning of the Directive Principles of State Policy is still being worked out. The table below sets Fundamental Rights, principles and Fundamental Duties side by side.

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties compared
	Fundamental Rights	Directive Principles	Fundamental Duties
Place	Part III, Articles 12–35	Part IV, Articles 36–51	Part IVA, Article 51A
In the Constitution since	1950	1950	1976 (42nd Amendment); clause (k) 2002 (86th)
Enforceable in court?	Yes (Articles 32 and 226); a conflicting law is void (Article 13)	No (Article 37), yet fundamental in governance	No direct enforcement; only through laws that back them
Addressed to	Limits on the State; some for citizens only, others for every person	Directions to the State	Citizens only
Idea commonly traced to	Bill of Rights of the USA	Constitution of Ireland	Constitution of the former USSR
Aim	Political democracy	Social and economic democracy	Civic responsibility

Exam traps

Champakam Dorairajan (1951) held that the Directive Principles must conform to and run subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights; the reply was Article 15(4), added by the First Amendment, not Article 15(5).
Golaknath (1967) was decided by eleven judges, six to five; Kesavananda Bharati (1973) by thirteen judges, seven to six. Do not swap the benches.
Article 31C was inserted by the 25th Amendment (1971); the 42nd Amendment (1976) only extended it to all the Directive Principles.
Kesavananda upheld the first half of Article 31C and struck down only the second half, which barred courts from questioning the legislature's declaration.
Minerva Mills (1980) struck down the 42nd Amendment's extension of Article 31C; the provision survives only for Article 39(b) and (c). Harmony between Parts III and IV is a basic feature.
The Swaran Singh Committee suggested eight duties; the 42nd Amendment added ten; the 86th Amendment (2002) added the eleventh, clause (k). There are eleven duties, not ten.
Fundamental Duties bind citizens only and carry no penalty in the Constitution; laws such as the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 give some of them teeth (that Act is older than Part IVA).
Directive Principles are traced to the Irish Constitution and Fundamental Duties to the former USSR; voting and paying taxes are not among the eleven duties.

Recap

Rights are justiciable (Articles 32, 226; Article 13 voids conflicting laws); principles are non-justiciable (Article 37) and need laws to take effect.
Champakam (1951): principles subordinate to rights; First Amendment (1951): Article 15(4), Articles 31A, 31B and the Ninth Schedule.
Golaknath (1967, 6:5): Parliament cannot abridge Fundamental Rights; 24th Amendment (1971) restored the power.
25th Amendment (1971): Article 31C protects laws for Article 39(b) and (c) against Articles 14, 19 and 31.
Kesavananda (1973): basic structure; first half of Article 31C upheld, bar on judicial review struck down.
42nd Amendment extended Article 31C to all principles; Minerva Mills (1980) struck that down: balance of Parts III and IV is basic.
Property Owners Association (2024, nine judges): not every private resource is a material resource of the community; Article 31C survives.
Fundamental Duties: Part IVA, Article 51A; 42nd Amendment (1976) on the Swaran Singh Committee's advice; USSR model; eleventh duty by the 86th Amendment (2002).
Duties bind citizens only, carry no constitutional penalty and are enforced through laws (Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971; environment laws; RTE Act, 2009); Justice J.S. Verma Committee (1999).

Practice questions

Q1. In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the Directive Principles of State Policy must conform to and run subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights?

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Minerva Mills v. Union of India

Show answer

Answer: A. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

Champakam Dorairajan (1951) put the principles below the rights and led to Article 15(4). Golaknath (1967) was about whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights; Kesavananda (1973) laid down the basic structure doctrine; Minerva Mills (1980) held that the two Parts must be kept in balance, not that one is subsidiary.

Q2. Consider the following statements about Article 31C of the Constitution of India:
1. It was inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971.
2. In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court struck down the whole of Article 31C.
3. In Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court struck down the extension of Article 31C to all the Directive Principles.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
1 and 3 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3

Show answer

Answer: B. 1 and 3 only

Statement 1 is correct: the 25th Amendment inserted Article 31C. Statement 2 is wrong: Kesavananda upheld the first half and struck down only the clause that barred courts from questioning the legislature's declaration. Statement 3 is correct. So '1 only' leaves out a correct statement, and any option containing 2 is wrong.

Q3. Match List I with List II:
List I (Case)
A. Golaknath (1967)
B. Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
C. Minerva Mills (1980)
D. Property Owners Association (2024)
List II (Holding)
1. Not every privately owned resource is a material resource of the community
2. Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to abridge Fundamental Rights
3. Harmony and balance between Parts III and IV is a basic feature
4. The amending power cannot destroy the basic structure
Select the correct answer using the code given below:

A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1
A-4, B-2, C-3, D-1
A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1
A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3

Show answer

Answer: A. A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1

Golaknath barred amendments abridging rights (2); Kesavananda gave the basic structure limit (4); Minerva Mills made the balance of Parts III and IV a basic feature (3); the 2024 nine-judge ruling narrowed 'material resources of the community' (1). The second code swaps Golaknath and Kesavananda, the third swaps Kesavananda and Minerva Mills, and the fourth swaps Minerva Mills and the 2024 case.

Q4. Which one of the following Fundamental Duties was added by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002?

To protect and improve the natural environment
To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform
For a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child between six and fourteen years of age
To safeguard public property and abjure violence

Show answer

Answer: C. For a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to a child between six and fourteen years of age

Clause (k), the education duty of parents, came with the 86th Amendment along with Article 21A. The environment (g), scientific temper (h) and public property (i) duties were all among the ten added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

Q5. Consider the following statements about the Fundamental Duties:
1. They were added to the Constitution on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee.
2. They apply to all persons in India, including foreigners.
3. The Constitution itself prescribes a penalty for failing to perform them.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
1 and 2 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3

Show answer

Answer: A. 1 only

Only statement 1 is correct. Article 51A speaks of 'every citizen of India', so the duties do not bind foreigners (statement 2 is wrong), and the Constitution prescribes no penalty; the committee's suggestion of penalties was not adopted (statement 3 is wrong). Every other option includes statement 2 or 3.

Q6. Which one of the following is NOT a Fundamental Duty under Article 51A of the Constitution of India?

To value and preserve the rich heritage of the composite culture
To vote in elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly
To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity
To renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women

Show answer

Answer: B. To vote in elections to the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly

Voting is not listed in Article 51A. Composite culture is clause (f), excellence is clause (j), and renouncing practices derogatory to women's dignity is part of clause (e), so those three are duties.

Q7. Consider the following statements:
1. A court can declare a law void on the ground that it violates a Directive Principle of State Policy.
2. Article 37 declares the Directive Principles to be fundamental in the governance of the country.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2

Show answer

Answer: B. 2 only

Statement 2 is correct: Article 37 makes the principles non-justiciable yet fundamental in governance. Statement 1 is wrong: only a conflict with a Fundamental Right (Article 13) makes a law void; ignoring a principle does not. Hence '1 only' and 'both' are wrong, and 'neither' misses statement 2.

Q8. Which one of the following laws directly supports the duty to respect the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem?

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971
Official Languages Act, 1963
Representation of the People Act, 1951
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009

Show answer

Answer: A. Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

The 1971 Act punishes insults to the National Flag and the Constitution and the prevention of the singing of the National Anthem, so it backs clause (a). The Official Languages Act deals with the use of Hindi and English, the Representation of the People Act with elections, and the 2009 Act with the right to education linked to clause (k).

← Part 1 All parts Quick recap →

Study this in the Upscore app to keep notes, save it for revision, track your practice scores and follow a plan to the exam date. It's free.

Study this in the app →

Sources

Constitution of India: Articles 13, 14, 15(4), 19, 21A, 29(2), 31, 31A, 31B, 31C, 32, 37, 39, 41, 51A and 226; Ninth Schedule — https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
Constitution (First, Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, Forty-second, Forty-fourth and Eighty-sixth Amendment) Acts; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 — https://www.indiacode.nic.in
Supreme Court of India: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951); I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967); Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973); Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980); Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024) — https://digiscr.sci.gov.in
Constituent Assembly Debates (Dr B.R. Ambedkar on the Directive Principles) — https://eparlib.nic.in
Report of the Committee to Operationalise the Suggestions to Teach Fundamental Duties to the Citizens of the Country (Justice J.S. Verma), Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1999 — https://www.education.gov.in