NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Civics Chapter 4 Judiciary contain solutions to the exercises given in the Civics book Social and Political Life. These answers have been explained in a manner that you will easily understand all the concepts and get your doubts cleared without even seeking anyone’s assistance. You can read and download all the questions and answers in PDF format.
Class 8 Civics Chapter 4 Judiciary NCERT Textbook Questions Solved
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 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. Politicians or other socially powerful people cannot use their power to change any judgement.
Every citizen whether big or small has equal rights and he/she cannot be discriminated against any other considerations except his being Indian citizen.
Question 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?
Answer: The Right to Constitutional Remedies connects to the idea of judicial review in its capacity of protecting the rights of the citizens against the working of the State legislature or executive. It allows citizens to move the court if they feel that their fundamental rights are being violated by the State administration. In the Constitution, every citizen has equal rights and none can be discriminated against. Hence, judicial review and the Right to Constitutional Remedies are inter-connected because the judicial review is practiced when any fundamental Right is violated by the State. In this case, a higher court can repeal the judgments of a lower court based on its own investigation.
Question 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 class.
Answer: Lower Court (Trial 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, Shakuntala were given life imprisonment while Subhash Chandra was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence.
Question 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.
(b) They went to the High Court after the Supreme Court had given its decision.
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.
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.
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?
Answer: The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)in the 1980sis a significant step in ensuring access to justice for all because before the 1980s, 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. Since 1980s the people can file their case through a letter or a telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Courts. The Courts take it as PIL (Public Interest Litigation) without spending any money.
Question 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.
Answer: 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 person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. In the Olga Tellis vs. BMC case, people were poor and lived in slums. For them, the eviction of their slum means deprivation of their livelihood which consequently means deprivation of life. This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right to Life.