Class 8 NCERT Solutions Civics Chapter 5 - Judiciary
What does it take to enforce the fundamental rights? What is the Right to Constitutional Remedies? Go through TopperLearning’s NCERT Solutions for CBSE Class 8 Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary to get the accurate answers for these questions. The answers available at our online education portal are prepared by experienced Social Science teachers.
The NCERT solutions also cover topics such as Supreme Court, Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Violation, Eviction etc. Other than studying from our textbook solutions, you may explore our revision notes and CBSE Class 8 Social Science sample papers.
Judiciary Exercise 64
It is necessary to have an independent judiciary to carry out the basic function of "upholding the law and enforcing Fundamental Rights" because
- The independence of the judiciary is an integral part of democracy.
- It intends to shield the judicial process from external influences.
- To provide full legal protection to all individuals going to court for whatever reason.
Also, any citizen can approach the courts of law if his/her Fundamental Rights are violated, without fear of disputes being solved in favour of those in power.
The Right to Constitutional Remedies connects to the idea of judicial review in its capacity of protecting the rights of an individual against the working of the State legislature or executive. Judicial review of the court decisions are carried out when the judgement given by a court violates any constitutional provisions. In the Constitution, every citizen has equal rights and none can be discriminated against. If there are any violations, the judiciary is free to review the earlier judgements even by the Supreme Court.
Lower Court: Laxman, his mother Shakuntala and his brother-in-law Subhash Chandra were sentenced to death.
High Court: Laxman, Shakuntala and Subhash Chandra were acquitted.
Supreme Court: Laxman and Shakuntala were given life imprisonment, while Subhash Chandra was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence.
b) False. The Supreme Court is the highest court of the country, and thus, its decision is final. No one can appeal the decision made by the Supreme Court. Hence, they went to the High Court after the Trial Court had given its decision.
c) False. If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused cannot go back again to the Trial Court because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the judiciary pyramid.
The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s was a significant step in ensuring access to justice for all because
- During that time the filing of the litigation was very costly.
- The poor who used to earn daily wages for their living could not attend the hearings as it would take up a lot of time.
- Also, there was a lot of paperwork that had to be done.
This step helped the poor as 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. In addition, the legal process was greatly simplified. Furthermore, a letter addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL.
In the 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. 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. Thus, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. In other words, deprive a person of his right to livelihood, and you shall have deprived him of his life.
The meaning of this phase is that if justice is not delivered at the right time, it either may lose importance or may become meaningless.
Example: Jessica Lal Case
It was a tragic situation where it could be clearly seen how justice was delayed and for a long time denied too.
Jessica Lal (1965-1999), a model in New Delhi, was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead at about 2 am on 30 April 1999. She was shot dead in full view of several people. It was on the basis of their statements that police built the case against the culprit. However, he fled the crime scene and remained on the run for days, something he would not have done had he been innocent. However, as time went by, witnesses to the murder suddenly became unable to identify him as the killer, and he was thus released on bail. On 21 February 2006, the culprit and others were acquitted. If the case would have taken more time, he would have probably remained free forever.
Following intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgement was overturned, and the culprit was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.
The sentences formed are
Acquit: The jury decided to acquit the defendant on grounds of lack of sufficient evidence to convict him of the crime.
To Appeal: The defendant decided to appeal to the High Court after his lawyer said the court's decision was not correct.
Compensation: The airlines awarded the victim fifty thousand rupees in compensation for the trouble caused due to flight delay.
Eviction: The couple faced eviction if they failed to pay the rent soon.
Violation: The woman protested the company's violation of her rights.
Judiciary Exercise 65
The duties of the government to uphold the Right to Food are
- To provide food to people who cannot afford the basic meals.
- To ensure that no one dies of hunger or malnutrition.
- To provide food to people who are unable to earn their own livelihood.
The phase "hungry stomachs, overflowing godowns! We will not accept it!" relates to the photo essay on page 61 because it highlights the situation of drought that took place in Rajasthan and Orissa in 2001. During that time, millions of people faced acute shortage of food; however, government godowns were overflowing from grains. These grains were just going to waste and were being eaten by rats. The situation was not acceptable to people and thus People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a PIL in the Supreme Court against the guilty state governments. They were then directed to provide more employment, food at cheaper rates and mid-day meals for children.
In this situation, the filed PIL helped bring relief to many.