a. M.C. Mehta (2) Vs Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 471
The Supreme Court has held that under art.51-A(g) it is the duty of the central government to introduce compulsory teaching of lessons at least for one hour in a week on protection and improvement of natural environment in all the educational institution of the country. It directed central government to get textbook written on that subject and distribute them to the educational institute free of cost. In order to arouse amongst the people, the consciousness of cleanliness of environment, it suggested the desirability of organizing – keep the city clean week, keep the town clean, keep the village clean week in every city, town and village throughout India at least once in a year.
b. AIIMS Student union Vs AIIMS AIR 2001 SC 3262
In this case importance of fundamental duties enshrined in Art. 51A has been shown while striking down the institutional reservation of 33% in AIIMS coupled with 50% reservation disiplinewise as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said that they are equally important like fundamental rights.
Tough fundamental duties are not made enforceable like fundamental rights but it cannot overlook as "duties" in Part IV is prefixed by to same word "fundamental" which was prefixed by the founding fathers of the constitution to "right" in Part III. Every citizen of India is fundamentally obliged to develop the scientific temper and humanism. Though Art. 51A does not cast any fundamental duty on the state. The fact remains that the duty every citizen is the collective duty of the state. Any reservation apart from being substantive on the constitutional anvil must also be reasonable to be permissible. In assessing the reasonability one of the factors to be taken into consideration would be whether the character and quantum of reservation would stall or accelerate in achieving ultimate goal of excellence enabling nation constantly rising to higher level.
It was also held that fundamental duties though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice of people’s wish as manifested through Art. 51A can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issues but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by courts.
c. Aruna Roy Vs union of India AIR 2002 SC 3176
In this case the validity of National Curriculum Framework for School Education was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Art. 28 of the Constitution and anti-secular. It provides imparting of value development education relating to basics of all religions. The court held that the NCFSE does not mention of imparting "religious instruction" as prohibited under Art. 28. what sought to be imparted is incorporated in Art. 51A(e) which provides "to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities ; to renounces practices derogatory to the "dignity of woman". And to see that universal values such as truth related conduct, peace, love and non-violence be the foundation of education. Accordingly, the court held that such education is neither violative of Art. 28 of the Constitution nor is against the concept of secularism.
d. Government of India Vs George Philip AIR 2007 SC 705
In this case the respondent has challenged his compulsory retirement from service. He was granted leave by the department to pursue advanced research training. He was granted leave by the department to pursue advance research training. He was granted leave for two years. He over stayed in a foreign country in spite of repeated reminders come and join his duty after the expiry of his leave.
An inquiry was instituted against him and the charge of overstaying in a foreign country was proved. He was compulsorily retired from service. The tribunal and the high court granted him remedy of joining his service without back wages. The Supreme court set aside the order of the high court. The Supreme court held that Art. 51A(j) imposed a duty on citizen to strive towards excellence in all sphere and it cannot be achieved unless employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. The courts should not pass orders which instead of achieving underlying spirit and object of part IV A of the Constitution has tendency to negate or destroy the same. Overstay of leave and absence from duty by government employee and granting him six month’s time to join duty amount to not only giving him premium to indiscipline but wholly subversive of work cultures in organization.
e. Dr. Dasarathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR: 1985 AP 136)
It was held that under article 51A (j) of the Constitution, we all owe a duty to ourselves to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that this nation may constantly rise to higher levels of Endeavour and achievement. When the State undertakes to promote excellence, it can do so only through the methods which our Constitution permits to adopt. Rewarding of sycophancy only helps to retard the growth of efficiency and excellence.