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 and
Politicians or other socially powerful people cannot use their power to change
any judgement.
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?
Answer
The Right to Constitutional Remedies allows an Indian citizen to move the court
if he feels that any of his or her Fundamental Rights has been violated by the
State. As thefinal interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary has the power
to review or even strike down any particular law passed by the Parliament if it
believes that this law violates the basic structure of the constitution, which
is called judicial review. In this way we find that the Right to Constitutional
Remedies given in the Fundamental Rights is directly connected and supported by
the idea of judicial review.
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.
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.
Answer
(a) True
(b) 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 cannot go back
again to the Trial Court
since the Supreme Court is at the highest rung of 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?
Answer
The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s is a
significant step in ensuring access to justice for all because it also keeps in
mind the interests of the illiterate and poor who are not educated enough or
cannot afford to access the Indian legal system for justice against exploitation
or violation of their basic human and Fundamental Rights.
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 Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges said that the
Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. They stated that life does
not merely imply an animal existence; it cannot be lived without a means of
living, that is, "the means of livelihood". The judges conferred that eviction
from a pavement or slum is deprivation of means of livelihood for the poor
who cannot afford to live anywhere else. They take up small jobs in surrounding
areas and to lose their pavement or slum would lead to loss of a job resulting
in loss of a means of livelihood. Consequently, leading to "deprivation of
life". This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right to
Life.