Q:
Write a story around the theme, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.
A:
Do it yourself.
Q:
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.
A:
In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation case, the judges opined that the Right to Livelihood was part of the Right to Life. They stated that life does not merely mean an animal existence; it cannot be lived without 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, this will lead to "deprivation of life". This is how the judges connected Right to Livelihood to the Right to Life.
Q:
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?
A:
In early 1980s, the Supreme Court devised a mechanism of Public Interest Litigation or PIL to increase access to justice. It allowed any person or organisation to file a PIL in the High Court or the Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were being violated.
The legal process was greatly simplified and even a letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL.
PIL can be used to secure justice on a large number of issues such as the issue of bonded labourers working in inhuman conditions.
Q:
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.
A:
(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 went to the Supreme Court after the High 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. ✕
The accused cannot go back to the Trial Court as Supreme Court is the highest court. ✓
Q:
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.
A:
Q:
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?
A:
Any Indian citizen who feels that his/her Fundamental Rights are being violated by the State can knock the door of the Court. This is the Right to Constitutional Remedies. The Judiciary is the final interpreter of the Constitution and has the power to review or strike down any law passed in the Parliament if it feels that the law violates the basic structure of the constitution. This is called Judicial Review. Thus, we see that the Right to Constitutional Remedies is connected and supported by the idea of Judicial Review.
Q:
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?
A:
The independence of judiciary ensures that there is no interference of the legislature and executive in functioning of judiciary. This is important for upholding the law and enforcing Fundamental Rights. If a person feels that his/her fundamental rights are being violated by the state she/he can approach the courts.
Powerful politicians and ministers cannot influence the judgment of the courts.
Q:
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 on page 61?
A:
The duties of the government to uphold the Right to Food given in the poster are –
- that all persons get food
- that no one goes to sleep hungry
- that persons who are most vulnerable to hunger like the elderly, the disabled, widows, etc. get special attention.
- that there is no death because of malnutrition or hunger
The photo essay depicts acute shortage of food in Rajasthan and Orissa because of drought. But on the other hand, government godowns are full of food grains which are often eaten up by rats. This speaks for the inefficiency or insincerity of the government to address the problem of hunger.
The phrase in the poster – “Hungry stomachs, overflowing godowns! We will not accept it!!” is meant to remind the government that such a situation is totally unacceptable.
Q:
Make sentences with each of the glossary words given on the next page.
A:
- Acquit: The murder accused was acquitted by the court for the lack of evidence.
- To Appeal: The lawyer suggested his client to appeal in the High Court against the judgment of Trial Court.
- Compensation: The kin of the deceased factory workers were given ₹ 2 lakhs in compensation by the factory owner.
- Eviction: The tenant was evicted from the house as he could not pay the rent.
- Violation: The police reprimanded the motorist for violation of traffic rules.
India’s leading learning platform
Get
in touch
Have a query about our services?
Get in touch with us and we will
guide you through a new world of
redefined learning
Already member? LogIn