CBSE Class 8 Social and Political Life III - Chapter 5, JUDICIARY - NCERT Solutions


CBSE Class VIII Civics - NCERT Social and Political Life III


NCERT Solutions (NCERT Answers) of Textbook Exercise Questions

Question 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?
Answer: The Indian Constitution provides the same rule of law and Fundamental Rights to all its citizens. This implies that every citizen of this country, irrespective of his social, economic or cultural backgrounds, caste and religion etc. has equal right to justice through our judiciary system. Although we often hear of rich or powerful people in India trying to influence the judicial process, the Indian Constitution protects against this kind of situation by providing for the Independence of the judiciary. In order to uphold the law and enforce Fundamental Rights the judiciary or the courts need to deliver impartial judgments. To carry out this function it is necessary for the judiciary to be independent so that it can work impartially without being under influence of anybody.

Question 2: 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 allows an Indian citizen to move the court if he feels that any of his or her Fundamental Rights has been violated by the State. As thefinal interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary has the power to review or even strike down any particular law passed by the Parliament if it believes that this law violates the basic structure of the constitution, which is called judicial review. In this way we find that the Right to Constitutional Remedies given in the Fundamental Rights is directly connected and supported by the idea of judicial review.

Question 4: Keeping the Sudha Goel case in mind, tick the sentences that are true and correct the ones that are false.
  1. The accused took the case to the High Court because they were unhappy with the decision of the Trial Court. 
  2. They went to the High Court after the Supreme Court had given its decision.
  3. If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused can go back again to the Trial Court.
       1)     Correct (True).
       2)     False (They went to the Supreme Court after the High Court gave its decisions).
       3)     False (If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict the accused cannot go back                   again to the Trial Court).

Question 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?
How do through PIL any person can get justice easily and without too much expense?
Answer: In democracy all citizens of India can access the courts in this country as they have right to justice provided by the Constitution. Although the courts are available for all, but in reality access to courts has always been difficult for a vast majority of the people because -
a) Before 1980s filling of Litigation was very costly.
b) Legal procedures involved a lot of money.
c) The total process involved a lot of paper work and time.
For these reasons it was very difficult for a poor person to approach the court and hence, get a justice. The introduction of Public Interest Litigation or (PIL) by the Supreme Court in early 1980s allowed any individual or organization to file their case simply through a letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the high court without spending money. Thus, the introduction of the PIL is a significant step in ensuring access to justice to all the citizens easily and without much expense.

Question 6: Re-read excerpts from the judgments 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.
Answer: In the Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges meant that Right to Life had wider meaning. It included the Right to Livelihood. No one can survive without livelihood. Livelihood means what a person earns to buy food, clothing, and shelter. Hence, no one can be forced or deprived of his livelihood.

Question 7: Write a story around the theme, 'Justice delayed is justice denied'.
Answer: Mohan was the only bread earner of his family. He was killed in an accident, leaving behind his widow and two daughters in 1980. His widow filed a case for compensation and a job on compassionate ground. The court lingered on the case for more than 28 years. She worked on the fields and her daughters worked as domestic help. With hard work she was able to earn her livelihood. She borrowed money from landlord and got her daughters married to poor grooms. The case was decided and a compensation of 5 lakh was awarded to her. Now this money does not have any value for the widow. Since, her daughters were already married and at the time of need she did not get this money and so could not give proper education to her daughters. Justice has been delayed for 28 years. Hence, it is rightly said that justice delayed is justice denied. 

Write comments