CBSE Class 9 Social Science Democratic Rights NCERT Solutions

Solution: The correct option is (d) Parents' property is inherited by their children. While inheriting property is a legal right, it is not explicitly listed as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Options (a), (b), and (c) represent exercises of fundamental rights: (a) relates to the freedom of movement and livelihood, (b) relates to the freedom to establish and administer educational institutions, and (c) relates to the right to equality.

Solution: The freedoms not available to an Indian citizen are (b) Freedom to participate in armed revolution, (c) Freedom to start a movement to change the government, and (d) Freedom to oppose the central values of the Constitution. While citizens have the right to criticize the government (a) and to advocate for change through peaceful means, engaging in armed revolution or actively opposing the core constitutional values goes against the principles of law and order and the sovereignty of the nation.

Solution: The right available under the Indian Constitution among the given options is (c) Right to protect one's culture. This falls under the Cultural and Educational Rights. The Right to Work (a) and Right to Adequate Livelihood (b) are considered Directive Principles of State Policy, not fundamental rights directly enforceable by courts. The Right to Privacy (d) has been recognized by the Supreme Court as an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, but 'Right to protect one's culture' is a more direct and explicit fundamental right listed.

Solution:

(a) Freedom to propagate one's religion falls under the Right to Freedom of Religion.

(b) Right to life falls under the Right to Freedom (specifically Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

(c) Abolition of untouchability falls under the Right to Equality (specifically Article 17).

(d) Ban on bonded labour falls under the Right against Exploitation (specifically Article 23, Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour).

Solution: Statement (a) is more valid: "Every country that is a democracy gives rights to its citizens."

Reasoning: A fundamental characteristic of a democracy is the protection and guarantee of fundamental rights to its citizens. These rights are essential for citizens to participate in the democratic process, hold the government accountable, and live with dignity. While it is true that a country providing rights might not necessarily be a full democracy (as some non-democratic regimes may grant certain limited rights), it is indispensable for any nation to be considered a democracy that it must provide its citizens with fundamental rights.

Solution:

(a) Justified: Yes, this restriction is justified. The Right to Freedom of Movement allows citizens to travel freely within the country. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the security of the State. Restricting access to sensitive border areas for security reasons is a necessary measure to protect national interests and is therefore a justified limitation.

(b) Justified: This can be justified in certain circumstances. While the Right to Freedom allows citizens to reside and settle in any part of the country, restrictions can be imposed to protect the unique cultural identity, land rights, or economic interests of indigenous or local populations in specific regions. This is often done to prevent exploitation and preserve the distinct character of these areas.

(c) Not Justified: No, this restriction cannot be justified. The freedom of speech and expression, which includes the freedom to publish, is a fundamental right. Banning a book solely because it might be critical of the ruling party or could affect election prospects is a violation of this right. Such a ban amounts to censorship and is not a reasonable restriction in a democratic society; it infringes upon the right to information and free expression.

Solution: Manoj's fundamental rights being violated are the Right to Equality and the Right to Freedom.

The clerk's discriminatory remarks based on Manoj's caste and occupation violate the Right to Equality (Article 15), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, sex, religion, etc. Furthermore, the clerk's attempt to dictate Manoj's career choice and community's traditional occupation infringes upon his Right to Freedom (Article 21), which includes the liberty to choose any profession or occupation.

Letter to the District Collector: To, The District Collector,

[District Name],

[State],

[Date]

Subject: Violation of Fundamental Rights

Respected Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring to your attention a grave incident of discrimination and violation of my fundamental rights that occurred on [Date] at [Name of College] while I was attempting to submit my application for the MBA course.

The clerk at the admissions office, Mr./Ms. [Clerk's Name, if known], refused to accept my application. His/Her reason for refusal was based on my background as the 'son of a sweeper,' questioning my aspiration to pursue management studies and suggesting I should instead apply for a sweeper's position. This discriminatory behaviour is a direct violation of my fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

Specifically, the Right to Equality (Article 15) prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste. My caste should not be a barrier to my educational and career aspirations. Additionally, the Right to Freedom (Article 21), which includes the right to personal liberty and the freedom to choose any profession, has been violated by the clerk's attempt to limit my choices based on my social background.

I request you to kindly investigate this matter and take appropriate action against the concerned clerk to ensure that such discriminatory practices are not repeated and that my rights are protected.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Manoj

[Your Address]

[Your Contact Number]

Solution: In this dispute, Madhurima is right.

Reasoning: The Registrar's insistence that Madhurima change her name to her husband's surname is an infringement upon her personal liberty and autonomy, which falls under the Right to Freedom (Article 21). Her identity and name are personal choices, and forcing her to adopt a different surname based on marriage is an imposition. Furthermore, the Registrar's action touches upon social practices that often stem from religious customs that may treat women as inferior or subordinate. By compelling her to change her name, it could be seen as an indirect violation of her Right to Equality (Article 14 and 15), as it imposes a patriarchal norm that is not applied equally to men. Her argument that her husband's name has not changed after marriage highlights the unequal treatment often imposed on women regarding surnames. Therefore, Madhurima's assertion of her right to retain her identity is valid.