Scope and Legislative Enforceability of Civic Obligations

The second and third statements are accurate. Fundamental Duties (Part IVA) are non-justiciable, but Parliament is fully empowered to enforce them by passing suitable penal legislation (e.g., laws against insulting the flag). The first statement is legally false; unlike some Fundamental Rights which apply to everyone, Fundamental Duties are confined *exclusively* to Indian citizens and do not extend to foreigners.

The Assertion is true; citizens *can* be punished for violating duties (like destroying public property). Reason 1 correctly explains the mechanism: 'non-justiciable' stops courts, but empowers Parliament to write specific penal laws. Reason 2 is legally false; Fundamental Duties do NOT apply to everyone on Indian soil; they apply strictly to Indian citizens only.

The first breakdown is perfectly accurate. The lawyer's demand fails twice. First, Part IVA (Fundamental Duties) is explicitly confined to Indian citizens, so it cannot be applied to a foreign tourist. Second, even if the tourist were a citizen, Part IVA is non-justiciable. The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce a Constitutional Duty; they can only enforce a specific, separate *statutory law* passed by Parliament regarding public property damage.

Only two claims are verifiable (Statements 2 and 3: non-justiciability prevents direct court enforcement, but Parliament retains power to pass penal laws). Statement 1 is false because the civic obligations in Part IVA are explicitly restricted to citizens, entirely excluding foreign nationals.