Q13. 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
They went to the High Court after the Trial Court had given its decision.
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
Q14. What is the structure of the judicial system of India?
What is the Structure of Courts in India?
Explain the judiciary system existing in India.
Ans. There are three different levels of courts in our
country. There are several courts at the lower level while there is only one at
the apex level. The courts that most people interact with are what are called
subordinate or district courts. These are usually at the district or Tehsil
level or in towns and they hear many kinds of cases. Each state is divided into
districts that are presided over by a District Judge. Each state has a High
Court which is the highest court of that state. At the top is the Supreme Court
that is located in New Delhi and is presided over by the Chief Justice of
India. The decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts
Q15. What is the Role of the Judiciary?
Broadly speaking, the work that the judiciary does can be divided into the
Resolution: The judicial system provides a mechanism for
resolving disputes between citizens, between citizens and the government,
between two state governments and between the centre and state governments.
Review: As the final interpreter of the Constitution, the
judiciary also has the power to strike down particular laws passed by the
Parliament if it believes that these are a violation of the basic structure of
the Constitution. This is called judicial review.
the Law and Enforcing Fundamental Rights: Every citizen of India
can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court if they believe that their
Fundamental Rights have been violated.
Q16. Differentiate between Criminal Law and Civil Law.
Difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law
1. Deals with conduct or acts that the
defines as offences. For example, theft, harassing a woman
to bring more dowry, murder.
1. Deals with any harm or injury to
rights of individuals. For example, disputes relating
to sale of land, purchase of goods, rent matters, divorce cases.
2. It usually begins with the lodging of
Information Report (FIR) with the police who investigate
the crime after which a case is filed in the court.
2. A petition has to be filed before the
court by the affected party only. In a rent matter, either
the landlord or tenant can file a case.
3. If found guilty, the accused can be
jail and also fined.
3. The court gives the specific relief
For instance, in a case between a landlord and a tenant,
the court can order the flat to be vacated and pending
to be paid.
Q17. 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?
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.
Q18. 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
Ans. 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.