Answer The Following 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?
Ans : An independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the law and enforcing Fundamental Rights because it ensures that the judicial process remains free from external influences, such as political or social pressures. This independence enables the judiciary to provide equal and unbiased legal protection to all individuals. If a citizen believes their Fundamental Rights have been violated, they can approach the courts for justice. Additionally, the judiciary has the authority to review laws passed by Parliament and declare them null and void if they are found to violate Fundamental Rights.
2. 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 ensures that citizens can seek judicial intervention if they feel their Fundamental Rights have been violated. This right empowers individuals to approach the courts to protect their rights against any unjust actions of the State legislature or executive. Judicial review is the process through which courts evaluate whether laws or executive actions comply with the Constitution. If a law or action violates Fundamental Rights, the judiciary can declare it invalid. Thus, the Right to Constitutional Remedies and judicial review are interconnected, as both work to safeguard citizens’ rights and uphold the Constitution.
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 the class.
Ans : Lower Court (Trial Court):
Laxman (Sudha Goel’s husband), his mother Shakuntala, and his brother-in-law Subhash Chandra were sentenced to death for Sudha Goel’s dowry death.
High Court:
Laxman, Shakuntala, and Subhash Chandra were acquitted due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court sentenced Laxman and Shakuntala to life imprisonment, while Subhash Chandra was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
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.
(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.
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?
Ans : The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Supreme Court in the 1980s was a landmark step to ensure justice for all, especially for marginalized groups. PIL allowed any individual or organization to file a case in the High Court or Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were violated, even if they were not directly affected. This simplified the legal process, enabling even a letter or telegram to be treated as a PIL. Through PILs, issues like rescuing bonded laborers from inhumane conditions and the release of prisoners unjustly detained were addressed. Thus, PIL democratized access to justice and ensured that even the weakest sections of society had a voice in the judicial system.
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.
Ans : In the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges ruled that the Right to Livelihood is an integral part of the Right to Life. They explained that life is not merely about existing but includes living with dignity, which is impossible without a means of livelihood. In this case, slum dwellers depended on their small jobs for survival, and eviction from their homes would deprive them of their livelihood, effectively threatening their right to life. The judgment emphasized that access to basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter is fundamental to living a dignified life, making livelihood inseparable from the right to life.
7. Write a story around the theme, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
Ravi, a farmer from a small village, had been wrongfully accused of encroaching on government land. The land had been in his family for generations, and he had all the legal documents to prove ownership. However, a local politician, eyeing the land for a commercial project, bribed officials to forge documents declaring the land as government property.
Ravi was forced out of his home and filed a case in court, hoping for justice. Years passed, and the case dragged on due to frequent delays and adjournments. Meanwhile, Ravi’s family struggled to make ends meet, as they had lost their livelihood. The stress and humiliation took a toll on Ravi’s health, and he passed away before the court could deliver a verdict.
Finally, after 15 long years, the court ruled in favor of Ravi’s family, stating that the eviction was unlawful and that the land belonged to them. While the family was grateful for the judgment, the victory felt hollow—Ravi, the man who had fought tirelessly for justice, was no longer there to see it.
This story highlights the harsh reality that justice delayed is indeed justice denied. Justice must be timely to truly serve its purpose, as delayed judgments often lead to irreparable harm and lost lives.
8. Make sentences with each of the glossary words given on the next page:
Acquit : The court decided to acquit the accused due to insufficient evidence proving their involvement in the crime.
To Appeal : After losing the case, the lawyer advised the client to appeal the decision in a higher court.
Compensation : The factory workers demanded compensation for injuries sustained during unsafe working conditions.
Eviction : The tenants faced eviction after repeatedly failing to pay their rent on time.
Violation : The journalist reported the violation of human rights in the detention center, leading to public outrage.