O R D E R.:-By Order of this Court, dated 09.06.2009 in Crl.O.P. No.9446 of 2009, while granting bail to the petitioners, after taking note of their alleged act in attempting to burn the National Flag, amongst other conditions, they were directed to hoist the National Flag with due respect before their respective houses for a week and to render social service at an Orphanage for such period and, by stating that, in view of the prevailing circumstances and position of Tamils in Srilanka, they were compelled not to show respect to the National Flag and hence, they will not carry out the above referred conditions imposed inasmuch as the same have no relevance to the course of investigation, petitioners-1, 3 and 7 in the main O.P. have filed the present miscellaneous petition for modification in that regard. 2. Before delving into the plea for modification, it is of much relevance to set out the background in which the petitioners herein have been granted the relief, their subsequent approach in taking this court for granted and the condemnable practice of dictating terms to the court so as to mould the orders suiting their convenience in contrast to the operation of Fundamental Duties embodied in the Constitution corresponding to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed therein to the citizens. 3. The Constitution of India guarantees to the citizens of the country some valuable rights called 'Fundamental Rights' and Articles 12 to 35 in Part-III deal with such rights and, of those Articles, Articles 19 to 22 pertain to the 'Right to Freedom' and Art.19(1) articulates, 19. (1) All citizens shall have the right- (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions; (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. One should take note that such rights are not absolute since they are subject to reasonable restrictions, for Clause (2) of Article 19 enables the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions even on free speech under following heads: I. security of the State, II. friendly relations with foreign States, III. public order, IV. decency and morality, V. contempt of court, VI. defamation, VII. incitement to an offence, and VIII. friendly relations with foreign States, III. public order, IV. decency and morality, V. contempt of court, VI. defamation, VII. incitement to an offence, and VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India, and, while determining the reasonableness of a restriction upon the freedom of expression, a reasonable balance must be struck between the need for the freedom for a democratic system of Government provided for by the Constitution and the social interest for the prevention of disorder and anarchy. 4. Every right, whether a fundamental right or human right, only makes sense if there is a corresponding duty, that is why, by virtue of part-IVA embracing Article 51A (inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976), the citizens are obligated, a) To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem. b) To cherish and follow the noble ideas, which inspired the national struggle for independence. c) To uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. d) To defend the country and render national services when called upon to do so. e) To promote the harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities, to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. f) To value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. g) To protect and improve national environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and have compassion for living creatures. h) To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. i) To safeguard public property and to abjure violence. j) 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. 5-A. Now, it is worthwhile to refer to the case law reported in Chandra Bhavan vs. State of Mysore ( AIR 1970 SC 2042 ), wherein, even before insertion of Article 51-A, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled thus :- " It is a fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties. The provisions in part IV enable the Legislatures to improve various duties on the citizens. The provisions in part IV enable the Legislatures to improve various duties on the citizens. The mandate of our Constitution is to build a welfare society and that object may be achieved to the extent the Directive Principles are implemented by legislation." B. Punctuating the prominence of one of the duties imposed on the citizens with reference to improvement of environments, the Supreme Court through its landmark Judgment reported in 1988 (1) SCC 471 (Mehta v. Union of India) held that it is a duty of the Central Government to take number of steps in order to make the provision effective. 6. As could be seen, amongst the duties, the primary duty of a citizen, who enjoys the fundamental rights, is to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the National Anthem and the wisdom behind introduction of the Article is that the individual may not overlook his duties to the community in exercise of his fundamental rights or commit wanton destruction of public property or the like. The moral value of the Fundamental Duties would be 'not to smother rights but to establish a democratic balance' by making the people conscious of their duties equally as they are conscious of their rights. It is expected that the citizen should be his own monitor while exercising and enforcing his fundamental rights, remembering that he owes the duties specified in Article 51A to the State and that if he does not care for the duties, he should not deserve the rights. For instance, a person who burns the Constitution, in violation of the duty in Article 51A,, cannot assert that the meeting or assembly at which it was burnt by way of demonstration against the Government should be protected by the freedom of expression or assembly guaranteed by Article 19. In the present case, not even the question of failure to perform duty/obligation arises, for, the petitioners carried the National Flag to defile and deface it under the guise of exercising a fundamental right. Even though they did not burn the National Flag, carrying the same itself for the purpose of setting fire to it clearly conveys that their intention was to burn the National Flag and thereby, the presence of mens rea could be inferred. Even though they did not burn the National Flag, carrying the same itself for the purpose of setting fire to it clearly conveys that their intention was to burn the National Flag and thereby, the presence of mens rea could be inferred. It is to be added here that no one can be prevented from staging demonstrations in a democratic manner within the parameters allowed by law to express their concerns and sentiments for the suffering Tamils; but, at the same time, if such demonstrations are conducted at the cost of defiling the honour of the constitution and national symbols, such practice cannot and should not be allowed by courts which are custodians of the Constitution. 7. When this court expressed its displeasure on the alleged act of carrying the Tricolour to defile it, it was said that though the petitioners attempted to burn the National Flag, before they could do so, they were arrested, hence, the actual offence was not committed. Further, it was proposed on behalf of the accused that whatever conditions the court intends to impose, the accused would abide by the same. On conveying the mind of the court as to the conditions that are going to be imposed including the one to hoist the National Flag and render social service at an orphanage, it was submitted that the accused/petitioners are readily willing to comply with the same. That is why this Court, in the earlier order, did not elaborate the entire spectrum of the submissions made and, by just recording the submission that the petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by the court, passed a positive order. That being so, now, through the present Petition, the present petitioners seek to project as if the conditions have no relevance to the alleged offence and nothing to do with the investigation. Even they have the audacity to state that, due to the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka, they were compelled "not to show respect to the Indian National Flag". The difference between non-performance and defiance of a duty must be properly understood and seemingly, the petition is couched in such a sly language that, for the purpose of defying a duty obligated upon, those conditions which were willingly accepted for compliance must be modified. 8. The difference between non-performance and defiance of a duty must be properly understood and seemingly, the petition is couched in such a sly language that, for the purpose of defying a duty obligated upon, those conditions which were willingly accepted for compliance must be modified. 8. Of late, under the guise of conducting processions in exercise of fundamental rights, the instances of setting fire to the constitution/national flag, buses and trains, attacking the public and damaging public properties are becoming unstoppable. In that line, recently, a military vehicle came under attack by an indocile mob near Coimbatore in the name of conducting agitation for Srilankan Tamils' cause. Had there been ammunitions in the vehicle or an explosion, it would have caused wide damage, of course, taking away the lives of the demonstrators themselves. A right or freedom without fetter is like a crazy animal and that is why for every right there is a corresponding restriction and duty to have reign over the actions so that the society and national interests are not harmed. 9. With reference to grant of relief viz., bail/anticipatory bail, the position is that, if a person commits a bailable offence, it is mandatory that he shall be released on bail if he is prepared to give bail under Section 436 Cr.P.C. For releasing a person, who has committed a non-bailable offence, under Section 437 Cr.P.C., certain limitations and conditions are prescribed. Section 437(3) provides that, (3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chatter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the court may impose any condition which the court considers necessary- (a) In order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b) In order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c) Otherwise in the interests of justice. As could be seen from the provision, no hard and fast rule is prescribed regarding grant or refusal of bail. As could be seen from the provision, no hard and fast rule is prescribed regarding grant or refusal of bail. Each case has to be considered on its own merits, calling for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. The list of considerations viz., nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence collected, circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of securing the accused for further enquiry or trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses/evidence being tampered with, bad antecedents of the accused, possibilities of his jumping the bail, the impact of his release on the victims of offence and the society at large, possibility of repetition and retribution, health, age and sex of the accused and opportunity to the accused for preparation of his defence and access to his counsel; is not exhaustive and there may be other factors as well which would emerge from the facts and circumstances on record of each case. Section 437(3) also provides that the Court, which has released a person on bail, may, if it considers it necessary to do so, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. Thus, it goes without saying that imposing conditions on persons seeking relief is the discretion of the court having regard to various factors as referred to above. A litigant or accused has no right to dictate terms to court in imposing conditions suiting their convenience and if these types of bad precedents are allowed to surface, ultimately, the rule of law would be defeated. Courts decide the cases not on emotions and expectations but after viewing them with legal scanner, weighing the same on judicial scales and by applying judicial mind and parameters to ensure that justice is in fact done and constitutional aspirations are fulfilled irrespective of any type of criticism either good or bad that come from critics. 10. It is quite strange to note that, after volunteering to comply with all the conditions, some of the conditions are described to be irrelevant for the purpose of investigation. On the one hand, the petitioners herein made up their mindset not to respect the National Flag ie., to abandon/defy the duty cast on them by the Constitution and on the other hand, they state that they do not want to disobey the order of the Court, which is a Constitutional Institution. On the one hand, the petitioners herein made up their mindset not to respect the National Flag ie., to abandon/defy the duty cast on them by the Constitution and on the other hand, they state that they do not want to disobey the order of the Court, which is a Constitutional Institution. The strange attitude of these petitioners in respecting the Court to get favourable order and disrespecting the Constitution/National Flag for personal mileage only reveals their double-standard and such approach should not be encouraged. This is a clear flagrant case where, by misrepresentation to comply with any condition that would be imposed by the court, a positive order was obtained and, after getting such order, taking a diametrical stand as if strange and extraneous conditions have been imposed, the petitioners have approached this court with mala fide intention and unclean hands by way of filing the present petition and if, courts budge to such foul-games, anarchy would be the rule of the day. If the case was that the petitioners participated in the demonstration wherein attempts were made by others to burn the national flags that were brought by those accused and these petitioners refrained from such acts, the yardstick would be different, but here, the petitioners themselves carried the National Flag with the only intention to set fire to it. Such intention of theirs is fortified through their stand taken in the present petition filed. 11. Exhaustively discussing on the provisions relating to the Flag Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal & another ( 2004 (2) SCC 510 ), ruled thus:- " 7. ..... it may be remembered that from time immemorial, people have laid down their lives with a view to salute their own Flag. What is so compelling in the piece of cloth called the National Flag, that people make even the supreme sacrifice for its sake? National Flag indisputably stands for the whole nation, its ideals, aspirations, its hopes and achievements. 8. "A National Flag" as pointed by Lt. Cdr. K.V. Singh in his book 'Our National Flag' is the most solemn symbol of a country. Be it a Head of the State, King or peasant, salutes it. A piece of cloth called the National Flag stands for the whole nation, its honour and glory. 8. "A National Flag" as pointed by Lt. Cdr. K.V. Singh in his book 'Our National Flag' is the most solemn symbol of a country. Be it a Head of the State, King or peasant, salutes it. A piece of cloth called the National Flag stands for the whole nation, its honour and glory. When it goes up the flag mast, "the heart of a true citizen is filled with pride." In his foreword to this very book, Mr. R.Venkataraman, former President of India, referred to the struggle for independence and said as under: "Our flag, therefore, is both a benediction and beckoning. It contains the blessings of all those great souls who brought us to freedom. But it also beckons us to fulfil their vision of a just and united India. As we confront crucial challenges to our security, our unity and integrity, we cannot but heed to the call of this flag to rededicate ourselves to the establishment of that peaceful and just order wherein all Indians irrespective of creed, caste or sex will fulfil themselves." ........... 10. A motion was moved by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the Constituent Assembly of India on 22nd July 1947 for the adoption of the National Flag. The responses to this motion are extremely significant and serve as apt reflections of the importance of the Indian Flag to the Indian people as a whole. The Flag played an extremely vital role in India's struggle for freedom and its adoption was one of the indications of the culmination of that struggle. However, in the light of the present society, it is something that is much more than a mere symbol of freedom. 11. As said by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the flag is, "a flag of freedom not for ourselves, but a symbol of freedom to all people who may seek it." (See Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947, p. 766) It was not to be the flag of the rich or wealthy, but it is to be the Flag of the depressed, oppressed and submerged classes all over the country. (See the views of Shri V.I. Muniswami Pillai, in Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947, p.771). This flag was to be the flag of the Nation, not the flag of any particular community, but the Flag of all Indians. (See the views of Shri V.I. Muniswami Pillai, in Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947, p.771). This flag was to be the flag of the Nation, not the flag of any particular community, but the Flag of all Indians. As declared by Shri Frank Anthony, "while this is a symbol of our past, it inspires us for the future. This flag flies today as the flag of the nation, and it should be the duty and privilege of every Indian not only to cherish and live under it, but if necessary, to die for it." (See Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947, p. 780) 12. The significance of the National Flag was aptly portrayed by Pandit Govind Malaviya who said: "The importance of a National Flag does not depend on its colour, its bands or its other parts. The flag as a whole, is important and other things- the colours etc, that it contains- are immaterial. The flag may be of a piece of white cloth or of any other insignificant material but when it is accepted as a National Flag, it becomes the emblem of national self-respect. It becomes an expression of the sense of freedom of a nation." 13. The resolution which was adopted as under: "Resolved that the National Flag of India shall be a horizontal tricolour of deep Saffron (Kesari), white and dark green in equal proportion. In the center of the white band, there shall be a wheel of navy blue to represent the Chakra. The design of the wheel shall be that of the Wheel (Chakra) which appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Asoka." 14. National Flags are intended to project the identity of the country they represent and foster national spirit. Their distinctive designs and colours embody each nation's particular character and proclaim the country's separate existence. Thus it is veritably common to all nations that a national flag has a great amount of significance. In order that the respect and dignity of the flag be fostered and maintained, several countries have laid down rules relating to the use, display, etc. of the flag, along with rules to provide against the burning, mutilation and destruction of the flag. .... ........ 26. ..... In order that the respect and dignity of the flag be fostered and maintained, several countries have laid down rules relating to the use, display, etc. of the flag, along with rules to provide against the burning, mutilation and destruction of the flag. .... ........ 26. ..... It can be seen from the history, reflected very aptly from the discussions in the Constituent Assembly that the flag is definitely one of the most revered objects in our society. It must certainly be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This might not be possible without imposing any restrictions on its use. But one can see from the global scenario, that the major trend is to protect the flag against mutilation, destruction, etc. and not to prevent individuals from having any access to the flag, making its use a virtual exclusive privilege of the government. Since all Indians fought for freedom, it can never be the intention to deny them use of their National Flag - a symbol of their freedom in entirety. Thus, one can conclude that the basic intention is to provide against the destruction, mutilation, etc. of the Flag and to provide certain basic level rules for when and how it should be compulsorily used. Though not expressly stated, it must therefore give a right of usage to the citizens, other than on the specific occasions specified. 90. .... (i) Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation; (ii) The fundamental right to fly National Flag is not an absolute right but a qualified one being subject to reasonable restrictions under clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India; (iii) The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag ; (iv) Flag Code although is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 19 thereof, it would not restrictively regulate the free exercise of the right of flying the national flag. However, the Flag Code to the extent it provides for preserving respect and dignity of the National Flag, the same deserves to be followed. (v) For the purpose of interpretation of the constitutional scheme and for the purpose of maintaining a balance between the fundamental/legal rights of a citizen vis-a-vis, the regulatory measures/restrictions, both Parts IV and IVA of the Constitution of India can be taken recourse to." From the above decision of the Supreme Court, the position is now very much clear that, except by some reasonable restrictions, there is no embargo for the citizens to fly the national flag and there is no restriction for the judicial forums to impose the conditions like the one in the present case where the alleged act pertains to defiling the sanctity and honour of the National Flag and such act definitely has relevance to the duty obligated under Article 51A. In cases where it is absolutely essential that the movements of an accused be restricted, his related fundamental right is restricted by way of imposing condition on him to stay in a place other then the usual place where such accused resides; the present condition would also come under such context, of course, in a different manner and this Court finds no substance at all in the faint arguments made by the counsel for the petitioners to modify the condition. 12. The purpose and reason behind adverting to the constitutional provisions encompassing the fundamental duties and the decisions of the apex court towards enforcement of certain duties prescribed under Article 51A is that this Court has the responsibility not only to dispense justice but to make the litigants realise that they owe much to the Constitution by virtue of which they have access to justice and even question infringement of their rights by the State. Apart from that, this Court has to certainly draw a line demarcating the limits where the rights come to an halt, necessitating operation of the duties, enforceable through the legislature, particularly in a case where the litigants openly declare that they have no regard for the duties they owe to the constitution and go to a further extent by stating that they would not even respect the national flag/constitution. In a given situation, it is inevitable for the Court to make suitable observations and deductions so that principle is settled on the matter in issue. In a given situation, it is inevitable for the Court to make suitable observations and deductions so that principle is settled on the matter in issue. While proceeding so, there is no useful purpose in veiling the reality that the reason for encountering with such odd situations is the illiteracy and ignorance of the citizens about the constitution and its cherished values. The pathetic position is that majority of the citizens in the country do not even know about the existence of Article-51A in the Constitution, much less its provisions. It is relevant to advert here to the awakening letter of Ranganath Mishra, J., Former Chief Justice of India, addressed to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, (who took cognizance of it and treated the same as a Writ Petition [WP(C) No.239 of 1998)) stating : “All of us are experiencing to our horror degrading human behaviour in society every day. The deterioration is gradually becoming sharper and unless this fall is immediately arrested and a remedial measure found out and enforced, the situation would not improve. Fundamental Duties have remained in the Constitution Book and have not come out to reach even the class of people who handle the Constitution.”. “If society becomes duty based, every one in India should turn attention on performance of duties and through such performance ensure and be entitled to the rights of a citizen.”. “…..as a nation-building measure, teaching Fundamental Duties in every educational institution and as a measure of in-service training everywhere was necessary as these cannot be inculcated in our citizens unless these are brought into their minds and living process through teaching and education”. “….. it is the obligation of the State to educate the citizens in the matter of Fundamental Duties so that a right balance between Rights and Duties may emerge”. On disposing of the Writ Petition (judgment reported in 2003 (7) SCC 133 ), the Apex Court, by adverting to the report made by 'Justice J.S.Verma Committee' on operationalization of fundamental duties of citizens, observed that the Government of India would take notice of the recommendations of the Committee and directed the Central Government to take appropriate steps for the implementation of the committee's recommendations as expeditiously as possible. Unfortunately, no desired results emerged even after such observations of the highest judicial forum of the land. Unfortunately, no desired results emerged even after such observations of the highest judicial forum of the land. Though one may say that, subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Mehta's case (referred supra) for preserving the environmental system, there has been effective implementation of the law and the duty imposed by the constitution in that regard; evidently, there has never been an augmentative and conscious approach towards enforcing the entire duties covered by the spectrum of Article 51A. The stemming question is as to why the enthusiasm and vigorousness shown subsequent to M.C.Mehta's case towards effectuating one of the duties is absent towards other duties imposed by the Article and as to why the Legislature is not hearkening to the cry of the courts for timely action in that perspective. The State has been unsuccessful in providing adequate means and mechanisms for citizens to identify, imbibe and practise the “Culture of the Constitution” which ultimately led to low level of effectuation of Fundamental Duties and in some cases totally ignorance of even existence of such rights. Even in the instant case, one of the offenses said to have been committed attracts a provision of law which has been enacted in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Duties. 13. It is pertinent to point out here, during the debate in the Parliament on 26.10.1976, the then Law Minister voiced that care would be taken to include the fundamental duties in the educational curricula. But, it is very unfortunate that, more than three decades after insertion of fundamental duties, the purpose sought to be achieved behind introduction of the same seems to be in print rather than play due to want of effective legislation and endeavour on the part of the Legislature. To achieve the avowed object, the State should enact a law prohibiting any act or conduct disrespecting the constitution or neglecting the duties; for, the duties as such are not legally enforceable in court, but, if the State makes a law to prohibit any act or conduct in violation of any of the duties, the courts would uphold the same as a reasonable restriction on the relevant fundamental right. Courts may also look at the duties while interpreting equivocal statues which admit of two constructions. Courts may also look at the duties while interpreting equivocal statues which admit of two constructions. It is obligatory for a citizen to scrupulously follow the fundamental duties enshrined in Article 51A and, in aiding the State to achieve the goal behind introduction of Article 51A, courts can issue suitable direction in appropriate cases. 14. It is axiomatic that Ignorantia legis non-excusat ie., ignorance of law or a fundamental duty enjoined on a citizen is not excusable; at the same time, equal responsibility also lies on the shoulders of the State. Failure or inaction on the part of the Legislature in being unmindful towards its obligation to keep the majority as literate and educated about their fundamental duties is also inexcusable. The Legislature should wake up to its constitutional obligation so that undesired instances of ignorance of fundamental duties do not become routine. It is germane to quote here the recommendations highlighted by the National Committee to review the working of the Constitution in its Consultation Paper, dated 06.07.2001, relating to effectuation of fundamental duties of citizens, Organizing advocacy and sensitization programs. Preamble to the Constitution of India and the 10 clauses of article 51A on Fundamental Duties to be appropriately displayed on all government publications, diaries, calendars and at public places so that they always remain in the focus of the citizens. Radio and video spots, highlighting important messages related to Fundamental Duties, in the background of proper music and the National Flag, to be commissioned by All India Radio, Doordarshan, and other DD Channels. This should become a regular feature at least in all Doordarshan channels around the country, once or twice a day, to have significant impact over the years. January 3 to be observed as Fundamental Duties Day. Need to set up an autonomous body to act like ombudsman on Citizenship Values which could create a mechanism to act as catalyst towards overseeing operationalization of Fundamental Duties. The human resource of the senior citizens could be effectively utilized for discharging commitment of this nature. The financial implications for setting up this body which has also a state funding aspect will have to be taken into consideration. Small booklets on various aspects of Fundamental Duties written in a language easy to understand could also be developed for different levels of citizens. The financial implications for setting up this body which has also a state funding aspect will have to be taken into consideration. Small booklets on various aspects of Fundamental Duties written in a language easy to understand could also be developed for different levels of citizens. Such booklets should be particularly utilized by the citizens learning through Non-Formal Education (NFE) and Adult Education (AE) programs run by state governments and voluntary agencies. The concept of Fundamental Duties can form a major component of NFE and AE programs. The media should exercise considerable circumspection on the programs, serials, pictures, news and advertisements affecting the morality or the decency of our people and cultural heritage of the country. Environment issues need to get more space in the media. The media should take the role of an activist guard. It is not that it has to be a current topic or a part of political agenda that the media will pay attention to. Media people have to remain alive to their constitutional responsibilities arising from Fundamental Duties to see that subjects like environment do not become a casualty. Media has a duty to avoid presenting acts of violence, armed robberies and terrorist activities in a manner that glorifies the perpetrators’ acts, declarations or death in the eyes of the public. Fundamental Duties are not only sacrosanct but also have the element of compulsion requiring obedience, provided the machinery of the state appreciates its true nature and motivates the implementation machinery towards this end. The primary need, therefore, is to ensure a faithful and effective implementation of the existing legislation in the area covered by legislation and for prompt measures to legislate in the remaining field to fill the legislative vacuum. It is expected that the Legislature, riding on the wheels of Constitution, eagerly endeavours to enact law for strict enforcement of the duties enshrined in Article-51A with suitable penal provisions for violations and take efforts to educate the citizens in that regard through the various modes highlighted by the National Committee. The Units of the Governments which are dedicated for social services particularly at rural areas and for implementing education and social awareness programmes may also be mobilised to educate the people about their constitutional rights and the duties they owe in turn. 15. The Units of the Governments which are dedicated for social services particularly at rural areas and for implementing education and social awareness programmes may also be mobilised to educate the people about their constitutional rights and the duties they owe in turn. 15. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the modification sought for cannot be granted; hence, while dismissing the petition, Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, is directed, in the event of production of sureties by the petitioners, to insist upon them to give an undertaking for compliance in the form of an affidavit and see that the conditions including the one to hoist the flag, are duly complied with. The alleged offence was committed on 25.04.2009 and by this time, the investigation would have been concluded. By keeping a person in judicial custody, the prosecuting agency cannot delay filing of final report any more. Therefore, the respondent is directed to file final report within a period of one week from to-day and the trial court is directed to complete the trial of the case within three months therefrom, after complying with the formalities prescribed. Having regard to the various aspects adverted to in respect of Article 51-A of the Constitution in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court and to the obligation saddled on the State towards enforcement of the duties adumbrated in Article 51A, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to constitute an Expert Committee consisting of prominent members from Legislature, Executive and Judiciary to study and device an effective mechanism for propagating the whole scheme of Article-51A, educating and enlightening the general public about the applicability and impact of the provisions in the said Article with reference to the fundamental rights they enjoy and ensuring automatic operation of the Article in its real spirit; and to file a compliance report before this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the Order.