Judiciary - Class 8 Civics - Extra Questions

(i) It is possible that sometimes our rights may be violated by fellow citizens, private bodies or by the government. When any of our rights are violated we can seek remedy through courts. If it is a Fundamental Right we can directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Court of a state. 
(ii) Fundamental Rights. are guaranteed against the actions of the Legislatures, the Executive and any other authorities instituted by the government. There can be no law or action that violates the Fundamental Rights. 
(iii) If any act of Legislature or the Executive takes away or limits any of the Fundamental Rights it will be invalid. We can challenge such laws of the central and state governments. 
(iv) Courts also enforce the Fundamental Rights against private individuals and bodies. The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. 
(v) They can also award compensation, to. the victims and punishment to the violators. Our judiciary is. very powerful and can do whatever is needed to, protect the rights of the citizens.

Public interest litigation, or PIL, is defined as the use of litigation, or legal action, which seeks to advance the cause of minority or disadvantaged groups or individuals, or which raises issues of broad public concern. It is a way of using the law strategically to effect social change.

If a person is not satisfied with the judgment of the court of sessions judge,  he should appeal to the High Court.

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.

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.

Jatin Sarkar was a bank officer. After retirement he came back to his forefather's house. He requested the tenant to vacate the house. But the tenant did not vacate the house. Tenant challenged that if Jatin Sarkar wanted to have his house vacated, he should move to court for justice. He was compelled to live in a rented house. The owner lodged litigation against the tenant. After fighting the case for five years, the owner won the case. The decision was made in his favour by the Trial Court. But the tenant appealed in the High Court against the lower court decision. It again took five years for justice. In the meantime Jatin Sarkar kept on living in the rented house because unless there was judgement, he had no other option. In such a situation we can definitely say, 'Justice delayed is justice denied'.  

Acquit: The High Court, acquiltted Mrs Sharma but convicted her husband.

To Appeal: Very soon the Gupta family moved to the Supreme Court to appeal against the Lower Court's decision.

Compensation: The government announced compensation to the victim's family members.

Eviction: Pankaj's house was evicted and was given to the owner by the Supreme Court.

Violation: Pankaj was charged a heavy amount for the violation of traffic rules. 

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.

The primary distinction between the two terms is that- 

If a person feels that a particular law is not being followed he/she may approach the court.

One can register a case in the police station which comes under his/her area or locality.

To provide food for all To give special attention   on   the persons who are most vulnerable to hunger like elderly, disabled, widows, children etc. "Hungry stomachs, overflowing godowns!we will not accept it!!" do relate to the photo essay oh the Right to Food on page 61. We can see that due to drought in Rajasthan and Orissa, millions faced an acute shortage of food. Meanwhile the government godowns were full of grain. In such a situation, an organisation called the People's Union of Civil Liberties field a PIL in the Supreme Court. It stated that the Fundamental Right to Life guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution include the Right to food. The states' excuse that they did not have adequate funds was shown to be wrong because the godowns were overflowing with grains. The Supreme Court directed the government to provide food at cheaper prices through the government ration shops, and to provide mid-day meals to children.