CBSE Class 8 Social Science Chapter 5 – Judiciary NCERT Solutions

An independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the law and enforcing Fundamental Rights because it acts as a check on the powers of the legislature and the executive. This independence ensures that courts can make decisions based solely on the law and the Constitution, without being influenced by political pressure or the social standing of the individuals involved. If anyone believes their rights have been violated, they can approach the courts with confidence, knowing that judges will deliver impartial judgments, preventing the misuse of power by politicians or influential people.

The Right to Constitutional Remedies, as stated in Article 32 of the Constitution, empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court or High Courts for justice if they believe any of their Fundamental Rights have been violated by the State. This right is the foundation of judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of laws and actions taken by the government. When citizens use their Right to Constitutional Remedies, the courts exercise judicial review to determine if the government's actions or laws are in violation of Fundamental Rights, thereby upholding the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights.

In the Sudha Goel case, the judgments at different court levels were as follows:

• Lower court: The initial judgment by the Lower Court was to convict Sudha's husband, his mother, and his brother-in-law, sentencing all three individuals to death.
• High Court: Upon appeal, the High Court reviewed the case and passed a judgment stating that Sudha's husband and the other accused were innocent, leading to their release.
• Supreme Court: The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and delivered its final verdict, finding Sudha's husband and his mother guilty. They were sentenced to prison for life. However, the court acquitted the brother-in-law, freeing him from any charges.

The statement is False. The verdict of the Supreme Court is final and binding. Once the Supreme Court has given its decision, the accused cannot go back to the Trial Court or any other lower court to challenge that verdict. The case reached the Supreme Court after the High Court had already given its decision, and the Supreme Court's judgment marks the end of the legal process for that case.

The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s was a significant step towards ensuring access to justice for all, especially for the poor and marginalized sections of society in India. Traditionally, legal procedures are often complex, time-consuming, and expensive, making it difficult for the poor, illiterate, and financially weak individuals to approach the courts for justice. PIL allows any individual or organization, not just the affected party, to file a petition in the High Court or Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights are being violated. This mechanism significantly lowered the barriers to accessing the justice system, enabling a wider range of people to seek legal remedies for grievances.

In the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges explained that the Right to Life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not merely about the physical act of living. It encompasses the right to live with dignity and to have the means to support one's life. The judges recognized that many people migrate to big cities like Bombay in search of work and a basic livelihood. They often live in slums or on pavements because these locations are near their workplaces. The court stated that a person cannot be deprived of their life without following due legal procedure. Therefore, if a person's livelihood is taken away, it directly impacts their ability to live, making the Right to Livelihood an essential component of the Right to Life. Without the means to earn a living, the right to life itself becomes meaningless.