NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Civics Chapter 5 - Judiciary

Q1: 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?

Ans: 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 and Politicians or other socially powerful people cannot use their power to change any judgment.

Q2: 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?

Ans: The Right to Constitutional Remedies allows Indian citizens to approach the court if they believe any of their Fundamental Rights have been violated by the State. The judiciary, as the Constitution's final interpreter, can review or strike down laws passed by Parliament if they violate the Constitution's basic structure—a process known as judicial review. This links the Right to Constitutional Remedies with the concept of judicial review, ensuring protection of Fundamental Rights.

Q3: 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.

Ans: 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.

Q4: 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.
(c) If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused can go back again to the Trial Court.

Ans: (a) True
(b) False. 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.

Q5: 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?

Ans:  In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court introduced Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to expand access to justice. This allowed any person or organization to file a PIL in the High Court or Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were violated. The process was simplified—even a letter or telegram to the court could be treated as a PIL. PILs initially addressed many issues, such as freeing bonded laborers from inhumane conditions and releasing prisoners in Bihar held beyond their sentences. This innovation marked a major step toward ensuring justice for all.

Q6: 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.

Ans:  In the Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges ruled that the Right to Livelihood is part of the Right to Life. They argued that life is more than mere survival; it requires a means of livelihood. For the slum dwellers in this case, eviction meant losing their jobs and, therefore, their means to live. The court connected the Right to Life with essential needs: food, clothing, and shelter.

Q7. Write a story around the theme, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.
Ans: Mr. Shankar was a government employee. After retirement, he came back to his forefather’s house. He requested the tenant to vacate the house. But the tenant did not vacate the house. Tenant challenged that if Mr. Shankar wanted to have his house vacated, he should move to court for justice. He was compelled to live in a rented house. The owner lodged litigation against the tenant. After fighting the case for five years, the owner won the case. The decision was made in his favour by the trial court. But the tenant appealed against the lower court decision and date after date lingers on the decision and it took another ten years for justice. Mr. Shankar felt the justice unjustified as it was abnormally delayed.

Q8. Make sentences with each of the glossary words given?

Ans: The sentences with each of the glossary words given are as follows:

• Acquit: After a trial of 10 years in the Supreme Court, Mohan was acquitted of the charge of murdering his friend.
• To Appeal: I shall appeal in the higher court against the judgment of the lower court which is against me and from which I am not satisfied
• Compensation: 5 lakh was paid to Ruchi as compensation for her husband’s accidental death.
• Eviction: Eviction proceedings are pending in the court of the Rent Commissioner.
• Violation: Violation of the untouchability act is punishable under the Constitution.

Q9. The following is a poster made by the Right to Food campaign.

• Read this poster and list the duties of the government to uphold the Right to Food.
• How does the phrase “Hungry stomachs, overflowing godowns! We will not accept it!!” used in the poster relate to the photo essay on the Right to Food

Ans:  The duties of the government to uphold the Right to Food include:

• Ensuring that everyone has access to sufficient food.
• Making sure no one goes to sleep hungry.
• Providing special support to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled, and widows.
• Preventing deaths due to malnutrition or hunger.

The phrase “Hungry stomachs, overflowing godowns! We will not accept it!!” highlights the injustice of food scarcity during a crisis, despite full government storage facilities. This relates to the photo essay on the Right to Food, where, despite droughts in Rajasthan and Orissa causing severe food shortages, government godowns were stocked with grain. The People’s Union of Civil Liberties filed a PIL arguing that the Right to Food is part of the Right to Life under Article 21. The Supreme Court responded by directing the government to distribute food at lower prices through ration shops and to ensure mid-day meals for children.