1.3.2 Duty to Preserve the Historical and Cultural Monuments:
As stated earlier, Clause (f) of Article 51A of the Bhartiya Constitution stipulates that it is the duty of every citizen of Bharat to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. All the representatives of public are the citizen of Bharat by virtue of Article 84(a), 173(a) and relevant election laws in force across the nation at various governance level. All the judges are the citizen of Bharat by virtue of Article 124(3), Article 217(3), and Article 233. All the government employees are citizen of Bharat by virtue of various laws, rules and regulations in force for appointment of public servants. Hence it is duty of all these office holders to protect and restore the ancient culture of the nation, which was destroyed throughout the centuries by foreign invaders and alien rulers, who invaded the land to destroy ancient Sanatan culture. It is duty of every citizen to protect composite culture of this land with peace and harmony. The laws must be to protect such interests of various communities.
Meaning:
Composite Culture: This refers to the amalgamation of various cultural traditions, practices, and beliefs that have evolved over centuries in Bharat. It underscores the diversity and unity of Bhartiya culture, where different religions, languages, cuisines, arts, and philosophies coexist.
Duty to Value and Preserve: This implies an active obligation on citizens to appreciate, respect, and take measures to protect this cultural diversity.
Applicability:
Education: This clause encourages educational systems to incorporate teachings about Bharat’s diverse cultural heritage.
Cultural Preservation: It supports initiatives aimed at preserving cultural landmarks, languages, arts, and traditions that might be at risk of fading away due to modernization or lack of interest.
Public Policy: Governments are encouraged to frame policies that foster cultural preservation and integration.
Significance:
National Identity: Fosters a sense of national identity that is inclusive of all cultural streams, thereby promoting national integration.
Cultural Diversity: By valuing diversity, it helps in the prevention of cultural dominance by any single group, promoting equality among different cultural expressions.
Legal and Moral Responsibility: It places a constitutional duty on citizens, which can be invoked in legal contexts to protect cultural heritage from destruction or neglect.
Relevant Supreme Court Judgments:
Taj Trapezium Case: This case dealt with the preservation of the Taj Mahal, highlighting how cultural heritage sites are part of Bharat’s composite culture. The court’s directive for environmental protection around the Taj was indirectly linked to the duty to preserve cultural heritage, illustrating the practical application of this clause.[1]
Judges’ Transfer Case: While not directly about culture, the judgment touches upon the broader theme of national interest, which includes cultural integrity. The court’s observations on public interest and justice can be extended to cultural preservation.[2]
Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997): This case dealt with tribal rights and cultural autonomy. The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforced the importance of preserving indigenous cultures, which are part of the broader composite culture of Bharat, thereby supporting the ethos of Article 51A(f).[3]
These judgments not only interpret the clause but also demonstrate how the judiciary views the preservation of culture as intertwined with other constitutional rights and duties. They highlight that while the clause itself is not justiciable in the same way as fundamental rights, it influences judicial interpretations and public policy significantly. Clause (f) of Article 51A serves as a reminder of the cultural responsibilities each citizen bears. Its significance is seen in how it shapes educational, cultural, and legal frameworks to ensure that Bharat’s diverse cultural tapestry continues to thrive and be celebrated.
Although, since ancient times, people of this land supported assimilation with conscience, but destructions of already existing cultural and religious places are not acceptable at all by majority. There are large number of incidences recorded by historians, where invaders and foreign rulers destroyed the existing building of religious significance and constructed other kind of place of worship on the remains of the previously existing building. This is nothing but violation of religious and cultural rights, which had happened in past. These historical mistakes shall be corrected under the umbrella of Article 51A(f).
References:
[1] M.C. Mehta v. Union of Bharat (1996) [JT 1996 (6) 129]
[2] S.P. Gupta v. Union of Bharat (1981) [AIR 1982 SC 149]
[3] Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) [AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3297]
Add this website to your bookmarks to know more about these laws in simple language so that you can understand the provisions, their purpose, impact of implementation, failure to protect culture and much more. Share if you found it important for battle of cultural preservation
Know more about laws related to temples…
