NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Political Science Judiciary

1. You read that one of the main functions of the judiciary is ‘upholding the law and Enforcing Fundamental Rights’. Why do you think an independent judiciary is necessary to carry out this important function?

Ans. The independence of the judiciary allows the courts to play a central role in ‘upholding the law and Enforcing Fundamental Rights’ as

• It ensures that there is no misuse of power by the legislature and the executive. Anyone can approach the courts if they believe that their rights have been violated.
• Only an independent judiciary are able to protect our Fundamental Rights. The judiciary should be above all prejudices.
• Politicians or other socially powerful people cannot use their power to change any judgment.
• Every citizen whether big or small has equal rights and he/she cannot be discriminated against any other considerations except his being Indian citizen.

2. Re-read the list of Fundamental Rights provided in Chapter 1. Why do you think the Right to Constitutional Remedies is connected to the idea of judicial review?

Ans.

• An Indian citizen has the right to move to the court if he feels that any of his or her Fundamental Rights has been violated by the State under The Right to Constitutional Remedies.
• As the final interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to review or even strike down any particular law passed by the Parliament or the court if it believes that this law violates the basic structure of the constitution. Every citizen has equal rights and none can be discriminated in the Constitution.
• If there is a violation, the judiciary is free to review the earlier judgments even by the Supreme court. The judiciary has the power to strike down particular laws passed by the Parliament if it finds that they violate the basic structure of the constitution.
• In this way we find that the Right to Constitutional Remedies given in the Fundamental Rights is directly supported and connected by the idea of judicial review.

3. In the following illustration, fill in each tier with the judgments given by the various courts in the Sudha Goel case. Check your responses with others in the class.

Ans.

• Lower Court- The Lower Court convicted Laxman, his mother Shakuntala and his brother-in-law Subash Chandra and sentenced all three of them to death.
• High Court- The High Court acquitted Laxman, Shakuntala and Subash Chandra.
• Supreme Court- The Supreme Court founded Laxman and his mother guilty but acquitted the brother-in-law Subash because they did not have enough evidence against him. The Supreme Court decided to send the accused to prison for life.

4. Keeping the Sudha Goel case in mind, tick the sentences that are true and correct the ones that are false.

(a) The accused took the case to the High Court because they were unhappy with the decision of the Trial Court.

Ans. True

(b) They went to the High Court after the Supreme Court had given its decision.

Ans. False: They cannot go to the High Court after the Supreme Court had given its verdict or decision. They went to the High Court after the Trial Court had given its decision.

(c) If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused can go back again to the Trial Court.

Ans. False: If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused cannot go back again to the Trial Court since the Supreme Court is at the highest rung of the judiciary pyramid.

5. Why do you think the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s is a significant step in ensuring access to justice for all?

Ans. PIL (Public Interest Litigation) is a mechanism devised to increase access to justice. The introduction of PIL in the 1980s is a significant step in ensuring access to justice for all because:

• Before the 1980s, the filing of litigation into the courts was very costly.
• The illiterate and poor cannot afford to access the Indian legal system for justice against exploitation or violation of their basic Human and Fundamental Rights.
• It allowed any individual or organisation to file a PIL in the High Court or the Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were being violated. The legal process was greatly simplified and even a letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL.

6. Re-read excerpts from the judgment on the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case. Now write in your own words what the judges meant when they said that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life.

Ans. In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges stated that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life because no one can stay without the means of livelihood. They stated that life does not merely imply an animal existence; it cannot be lived without a means of living, i.e, “the means of livelihood”. By livelihood one earns money to buy food, clothing and shelter.
Hence none can be made devoid of his livelihood. The judges conferred that eviction from a pavement or slum is a deprivation of means of livelihood for the poor who cannot afford to live anywhere else. They take up small jobs in surrounding areas and to lose their pavement or slum would lead to loss of a job resulting in loss of a means of livelihood. Consequently, leading to “deprivation of life”. This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right to Life. If the right to livelihood is not included in the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood. Such deprivation would make life impossible to live.