5.2. Important Judicial Pronouncements

♤ Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1992): The officers in All-India Services (Administrative, Forest, Police, etc.) were not taking the training seriously resulting in deterioration of the services. Service Rules were amended so as to give weightage to the training and penalize failure. On a challenge being laid to the constitutionality of the amendment in the Rules in Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1992), in order to uphold the validity of the amendment, Ratnavel Pandian, J. drew strength from article 51A.

Referring to clause (j), which commands every citizen of India 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, it was held that the effort taken by the Government in giving utmost importance to the training programme of the selectees so that this higher civil service being the topmost service of the country is not wasted and does not become fruitless during the training period is in consonance with the provisions of article 51A (j). The constitutionality of the amendment was, thus, upheld.

♤ Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. Vs. A State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (1985): In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & AIR 1985 SC, in order to prevent imbalance to ecology and hazard of healthy environment being created due to working of lime-stone quarries, the Supreme Court directed the quarries lessees being cancelled and lime-stone quarries being closed down permanently. The directions were issued in face of fundamental right to trade and business and the right to earn livelihood.

Assigning paramount significance to Fundamental Duties and rather placing the Fundamental Duties owing to people at large above the fundamental right of a few individuals the court held that such closure would undoubtedly cause hardship, “but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimum disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment”.

♤ M.C.Mehta (II) Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1998): In this case, article 51A containing Fundamental Duties of citizens was read casting duties on the government and for issuing certain directions consistently with article 51A. Directions were:

o the Central Government shall direct to the educational institutions throughout India to teach at least for one hour in a week, lessons relating to protection and the improvement of the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life in the first ten classes;

o the Central Government shall get text books written for the said purpose and distribute them to the educational institutions free of cost;

o the children shall be taught about the need for maintaining cleanliness and with the cleanliness of the house, both inside and outside and the street in which they live;

o the Central Government shall consider training of teachers who teach this subject by the introduction of short-term courses for such training;

o the Central Government, the Government of the States and all the Union Territories shall

consider desirability of organizing “Keep the city/town/village clean” week;

o to create a national awareness of the problems faced by the people by the appalling all round deterioration of the environment.

♤ Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India, (1996): In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647 and Bandkhal and Surajkund Lakes matter, the Supreme Court recognized ‘The Precautionary Principle’ and the ‘The Polluter pays’ principle as essential features of ‘Sustainable Development’ and part of the environment law of the country. Article 21, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duty clause (g) of article 51A were relied on by the Supreme Court for spelling out a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. The court held it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environment degradation.

♤ Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, AIR 1987: In this case, it has been held that there is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing.

Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing. It was observed that there was no law enacted by Parliament making it obligatory to comply with article 51A(a). The Supreme Court allowed the petition filed by the children and directed the authorities to re-admit the children into the school.