Call us on
Email us at
ORCHIDS The International School

NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Chapter 5 – Judiciary

NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Chapter 5 - Judiciary are readily available for free PDF download on our website and app, ensuring convenient access to valuable study materials. Our comprehensive study resources offer step-by-step solutions crafted by subject experts, presenting answers in a clear and easily understandable manner. The NCERT Solution for Class 8 Social Science Chapter 5, focused on the Judiciary, encompasses responses meticulously prepared by our team of educators.

Access Answers to NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Chapter 5 – Judiciary


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 independent judiciary is necessary to carry out this function because the judiciary's independence permits it to play a key role in "upholding the law and enforcing fundamental rights,". It ensures that the legislature and the administration do not abuse their power. If they believe their rights have been violated, anyone can go to court. Politicians and other socially influential persons cannot use their power to influence any decision.


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 :

If an Indian citizen believes that the state has violated any of his or her Fundamental Rights, he or she has the right to file a lawsuit in court. The judiciary, as the last interpreter of the Constitution, has the right to review or even overturn any law approved by Parliament or the court if it considers it violates the constitution's basic structure. Every citizen has equal rights under the Constitution, and no one can be discriminated against. If there is a violation, the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is free to reconsider previous judgments. In this way, we can see how the Fundamental Rights' Right to Constitutional Remedies is linked to and supported by the concept of judicial review.


Question 3 :

n 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 :

 Laxman, his mother Shakuntala, and his brother-in-law Subhash Chandra were all sentenced to death by the lower court (Trial Court).

Laxman, Shakuntala, and Subhash Chandra were acquitted by the High Court.

Laxman and Shakuntala were sentenced to life in jail, while Subhash Chandra was acquitted due to a lack of evidence by the Supreme court.


Question 4 :

Keeping the Sudha Goel case in mind, tick the sentences that are true and correct the ones that are false.

  1. The accused took the case to the High Court because they were unhappy with the decision of the Trial Court.

  2. They went to the High Court after the Supreme Court had given its decision.
  3. If they do not like the Supreme Court verdict, the accused can go back again to the Trial Court.



Answer :

a. True - The defendants appealed to the High Court because they were dissatisfied with the Trial Court's ruling.

b. False - They are not allowed to appeal to the High Court once the Supreme Court has issued its ruling. After the Trial Court made its verdict, they went to the High Court.

c. If the accused does not like the Supreme Court's decision, they cannot appeal to the Trial Court because the Supreme Court is at the top of the legal hierarchy.


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 :

Since filing lawsuit in the courts was exceedingly expensive before the 1980s, the establishment of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s was a key step in improving access to justice for all. The illiterate and underprivileged cannot afford to seek justice in India for exploitation or violations of their basic human and fundamental rights. People have been able to file cases with the Supreme Court or the High Courts by sending a letter or telegram since the 1980s. Without investing any money, the courts accept it as a PIL (Public Interest Litigation).


Question 6 :

Re-read excerpts from the judgment on the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporationcase. 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 :

The justices in the case of OlgaTellis vs.Bombay Municipal Corporation stated that the Right to Livelihood was a part of the Right to Life. They claimed that life is more than just an animal existence; it can't survive without a means of subsistence, or "the means of livelihood." No one can exist without a source of income. A person's livelihood is earning money in order to purchase food, clothing, and shelter. As a result, no one may be deprived of their livelihood. The court agreed that eviction from a pavement or slum deprives the impoverished of their means of subsistence since they cannot afford to live elsewhere. They do small jobs in the neighbouring districts, and losing their pavement or slum would mean losing a job, and hence a source of income. As a result, "life deprivation" occurs. The judges linked the Right to Livelihood to the Right to Life in this way.


Enquire Now

Copyright @2024 | K12 Techno Services ®

ORCHIDS - The International School | Terms | Privacy Policy | Cancellation