NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary
NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary are given below. These solutions contain answers to all the exercise questions given in the Geography textbook. All our solutions are updated as per the latest CBSE Syllabus and Guidelines. These solutions will also help you to score higher marks with the help of well-illustrated answers. All the questions and answers of Class 8 Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary are provided here in PDF format.
Class 8 Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary NCERT Solutions
For a better understanding of this chapter, you should also read the NCERT book and other resources related to Class 8 Civics 5 Judiciary. Here at study path we also provide you with NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Maths, Science, English for free.
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 an individual against the working of the State legislature or executive. The Right to Constitutional Remedies allows citizens to move the court if they think that any of their Fundamental Rights are being violated by the State administration. Judicial review implies invalidation of legislative or executive action if it is seen to violate Fundamental Rights. Hence, the Right to Constitutional Remedies and judicial review are inter-connected because the latter is practiced when a 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 1980s is a significant step in ensuring access to justice for all due to the following reasons:
- 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.
- It increased access to justice by the poor and illiterate.
- the legal process was greatly simplified.
- Furthermore, a letter addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL.
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.
Question 7: Write a story around the theme, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.
Answer: Attempt this question on your own.
Question 8: Make sentences with each of the glossary words given on the next page.
(a) Acquit – The strong case in favour of Ravi led the High Court to acquit him of all charges of guilt that the Trial Court had levied on him.
(b) To appeal – The women’s organization lent strong support to the domestic maid to appeal against charges of theft that her employer had accused her of.
(c) Compensation – The state government paid compensation to the victims’ families after an unfortunate train accident that killed hundreds.
(d) Eviction – The company’s claims to land occupied by slum-dwellers led to the poor people’s eviction from their homes, which were bull-dozed by municipal authorities.
(e) Violation- The judiciary takes stringent action against any violation of Fundamental Rights.