The Judiciary : Class 8 Civics
By Triple W
Hi Polity Lovers! Welcome to Triple W. In this blog Post “The Judiciary : Class 8 Civics” we are providing solutions of NCERT text Questions. Hope you like it.
The chapter “The Judiciary” in Class 8 Civics highlights the structure, role, and significance of the judicial system in India. It explains how the judiciary acts as an independent body that interprets the law, protects citizens’ rights, and ensures justice in society. The chapter emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary, which is free from political influence, to safeguard Fundamental Rights and uphold the rule of law.
Key concepts like judicial review, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and separation of powers are introduced, showing how the judiciary checks the power of the executive and legislature. The chapter also discusses how citizens can approach the courts through PILs to address public issues. The Sudha Goel case and Olga Tellis case are examples that demonstrate how the judiciary protects individual and public rights.
Overall, the lesson reinforces the judiciary’s role as a guardian of justice and democracy, ensuring equality and fairness for all citizens.
Here are some text book Questions with their answers for better understanding
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?
Answer :
An independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the law and enforcing Fundamental Rights because it ensures that justice is delivered fairly and without bias. In a democratic system, the judiciary acts as a safeguard for citizens’ rights, protecting them from any misuse of power by the government or other authorities. If the judiciary were influenced or controlled by political leaders or other powerful individuals, it could not function impartially. This might lead to unjust decisions and violations of people’s rights.
For instance, if someone’s Fundamental Rights are violated, they have the right to approach the courts for justice. An independent judiciary, free from outside pressure, can hear their case, interpret the law, and ensure that the government or any other party follows the law. Without judicial independence, the courts could be manipulated, and people’s rights might not be effectively protected. Therefore, an independent judiciary is necessary to maintain the rule of law and guarantee that everyone’s rights are respected and upheld.
Re-read the list of Fundamental Rights provided in Chapter 1. How do you think the Right to Constitutional Remedies connects to the idea of judicial review?
Answer : The Right to Constitutional Remedies is closely connected to the idea of judicial review because it empowers citizens to approach the courts if their Fundamental Rights are violated. Judicial review allows the judiciary to examine the actions of the government or any law to ensure that they are in line with the Constitution. If any law or action is found to violate the Fundamental Rights, the judiciary can declare it unconstitutional and invalid.
The Right to Constitutional Remedies ensures that individuals have the right to seek justice if their rights are infringed. Through judicial review, the courts can protect these rights by reviewing government actions, laws, or policies. This connection allows the judiciary to act as a protector of citizens’ rights and ensures that no authority can undermine the Constitution or harm the fundamental freedoms of individuals. Essentially, the Right to Constitutional Remedies and judicial review work together to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that the government remains accountable to the people.
In the following illustration, fill in each tier with the judgment given by the various courts in the Sudha Goel case. Check our responses with others in the class.
Answer : In the Sudha Goel case, the judgments given by various courts can be filled in the illustration as follows:
1. Trial Court (Lower Court) : The trial court found Sudha Goel’s husband, Laxman, and his mother and brother guilty of dowry death. It sentenced all three to life imprisonment for their role in her murder.
2. High Court : On appeal, the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision. It acquitted all the accused, stating that there was not enough evidence to prove their involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Supreme Court : The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the evidence and circumstances, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision. It found Laxman, his mother, and his brother guilty of Sudha Goel’s death. The Supreme Court sentenced them to life imprisonment, reinstating the judgment of the trial court.
This sequence of judgments shows the different layers of the judiciary and how cases can move through various courts for justice to be ultimately delivered.
If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused can go back again to the Trial Court.
Answer:
(a) True
(b) False: They went to the Supreme court after the High court had given its decision
(c) False: The verdict of the Supreme Court is final.
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?
Answer : The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s is a significant step in ensuring access to justice for all because it allowed ordinary citizens, social activists, and even groups to approach the courts directly if they felt that public rights were being violated. Before PILs, only individuals directly affected by an issue could file a case in court, which often limited access to justice for marginalized or disadvantaged groups who didn’t have the resources or awareness to fight for their rights.
With PILs, the judiciary opened its doors to address larger public issues like environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, even if those directly affected couldn’t approach the courts themselves. This has empowered people to take up issues that impact the poor, disadvantaged, and marginalized sections of society, helping them get justice more easily. By lowering the legal barriers and simplifying the process, PILs have made the legal system more accessible and responsive to public needs, strengthening democracy and upholding the rights of all citizens.
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.
In the judgment of the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges explained that the Right to Livelihood is an essential part of the Right to Life because without the ability to earn a livelihood, a person cannot live with dignity. The Constitution guarantees the Right to Life under Article 21, which does not just mean mere survival but also living with basic human dignity.
The judges recognized that for many people, especially the poor, their livelihood is tied to their ability to survive. In this case, the pavement dwellers in Mumbai depended on their roadside living spaces to be close to their places of work. If they were forcibly evicted without any alternative arrangements, it would destroy their means of earning a livelihood, effectively threatening their very survival. Therefore, the judges concluded that the Right to Life includes the Right to Livelihood, as both are interconnected and vital for leading a dignified life.
_ _ _