NCERT Solutions for Class 11 Political Science Indian Constitution at Work Chapter 6: Judiciary

Chapter at a glance

Exercise Questions

Answer

• The first, second and fourth statements ensure independence: consultation with the Chief Justice (collegium) keeps appointments away from politics; security of tenure protects judges; Parliament’s lack of a role in appointments keeps them free of political pressure.
• Odd one out: “Judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court” — this is incorrect; High Court judges can be transferred (by the President on the collegium’s recommendation), and it is not a provision ensuring independence.

Odd one out: “A judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court” (they can be transferred).

Answer

No. Independence means that the judiciary is free from pressure of the executive, legislature or private interests in deciding cases. It does not mean the judiciary is above accountability. Judges are accountable to the Constitution and the people: they must give reasoned judgments, which can be appealed and criticised. They can be removed by Parliament through impeachment for proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Parliament also decides their salaries and the structure of courts. Independence and accountability together ensure impartial justice.

No; independence means freedom from pressure, but judges remain accountable to the Constitution, through reasoned judgments, appeals and removal by Parliament for misbehaviour.

Answer

1. Appointment: judges are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the collegium (Chief Justice and senior judges); legislature has no role, reducing political influence.
2. Qualifications: legal expertise and experience are required.
3. Security of tenure: judges hold office till retirement (65 for SC, 62 for HC) and can be removed only by impeachment — a special majority in both Houses for proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
4. Financial independence: salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund (not voted on) and cannot be reduced to the judges’ disadvantage (except in a financial emergency).
5. Immunity from criticism: the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in the legislature except during impeachment.
6. Contempt powers: courts can punish for contempt.
7. Bar on practice: retired judges cannot practise in courts below.

Collegium-based appointment, security of tenure with difficult removal, salaries from the Consolidated Fund, ban on legislative discussion of judges’ conduct, contempt powers, and ban on post-retirement practice.

Answer

• What the case is about: environmental pollution by the Dahanu thermal power plant (owned by Reliance Energy), which damaged the chikoo orchards, fisheries and forests, and the company’s failure to set up a pollution control unit (flue gas desulphurisation plant) as ordered.
• Beneficiaries: the chikoo farmers of Dahanu (and the local environment and community).
• Petitioners: the chikoo growers of Dahanu (with environmentalists).
• Arguments of the company:
  • The plant supplies electricity essential for Mumbai and development.
  • Crop failure may be due to other causes (weather, pests), not the plant.
  • Setting up the pollution control plant is costly and takes time; it had submitted a schedule.
  • It had acquired the plant only in 2003, so earlier failures were not its fault.

Arguments of the farmers

• Fly ash and sulphur emissions polluted groundwater and air; 70 % of crops were destroyed after 1989.
  • Their right to livelihood and a clean environment (right to life, Article 21) was violated.
  • The company ignored the orders of the authority and the Supreme Court.
  • They demanded compensation and immediate installation of pollution controls.

The case is about pollution by the Dahanu power plant; the chikoo farmers are petitioners and beneficiaries. The company would cite power needs, other causes and cost; the farmers would cite crop loss, violation of right to life/livelihood and non-compliance with orders.

Answer

• Governments: the Central (Union) government — Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (Ram Naik); and the Delhi government (Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit).
• Role of the Supreme Court: acting on a public interest case on air pollution, it ordered all buses and commercial vehicles in Delhi to be converted to CNG by a deadline, and refused to relax the norm — protecting the right to life and health (clean air).
• Judiciary and executive:
  • The judiciary laid down directions and monitored implementation (judicial activism).
  • The executive (Centre and Delhi) had to implement them, but found practical problems (insufficient CNG supply, long queues, converting 10,000 buses) and asked the court for more time and a dual-fuel policy.
  • The executive set up an expert committee (Mashelkar) to frame policy.

Issues involved

• Policy: fuel policy for transport; balancing clean air with reliable public transport.
  • Legislation: environmental and motor vehicle laws; the court filled a gap through its directions.
  • Implementation: feasibility of conversion within deadlines; CNG supply.
  • Interpretation: the court interpreted the right to life (Article 21) to include a pollution-free environment.

Governments: Centre and Delhi. The Supreme Court ordered and enforced the CNG switch to protect the right to clean air; the executive sought time and a dual-fuel policy. Issues: fuel policy, environmental law, practical implementation and interpretation of Article 21.

Answer

Differences

1. In India, decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India (Article 141), and High Court decisions bind subordinate courts in the state. Ecuador has no such system of binding precedent.
2. Indian judges give written, reasoned judgments, explaining the legal basis; in Ecuador this is not required.
3. India follows the common law tradition (from Britain), creating a consistent body of judge-made law; Ecuador follows a civil-law tradition.
4. Hence Indian law is more predictable — rights such as freedom of the press have been clarified by precedent.

Similarity: both have a hierarchy of courts with appellate judges.

Unlike Ecuador, India follows binding precedent (Art 141) and requires reasoned written judgments, making law consistent and predictable; both have appellate hierarchies.

Answer

• Government seeking the court’s opinion on a law — Advisory jurisdiction (Art 143).
• Tamil Nadu approaching the court on the Cauvery dispute with another state — Original jurisdiction (Art 131; disputes between states).
• Court rejecting an appeal against eviction — Appellate jurisdiction.

First: Advisory; second: Original; third: Appellate.

Answer

1. Easy access: under PIL, any public-spirited person or organisation can approach the court on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves; even a letter or postcard can be treated as a petition.
2. Low cost: the poor do not need money or lawyers.
3. Protection of rights: PILs have secured the release of bonded labourers and undertrial prisoners, better conditions in jails and protective homes, rights of pavement dwellers, and the right to food (midday meals).
4. Accountability: courts can direct the government to perform its duties.
5. Expansion of rights: the right to life has been expanded to include livelihood, shelter, health and a clean environment.

PIL lets anyone approach the court cheaply on behalf of the poor, leading to release of bonded labourers, prisoners’ rights, food and shelter rights, and government accountability.

Answer

Yes, it can.

• Through judicial activism, courts sometimes issue directions on matters of policy and administration — e.g. on pollution (CNG in Delhi), elections, appointments, police reforms — which are normally the function of the executive and legislature.
• The executive may see this as interference and as courts overstepping the separation of powers; courts may not have the expertise or resources to implement policies, creating practical difficulties.
• Conflicts have also arisen over judicial appointments (e.g. the NJAC was struck down in 2015).
• However, activism often arises when the executive fails to act or violates rights. Conflict can be minimised if each organ respects the limits of its role and courts exercise restraint.

Yes; when courts direct policy and administration, the executive may view it as overstepping the separation of powers, though activism often responds to executive failure.

Answer

• Judicial activism, especially through PIL, allows courts to act to protect the fundamental rights of people who cannot approach courts themselves, and to hold the state responsible.
• Yes, it has expanded the scope of fundamental rights, especially the right to life (Article 21), which now includes:
  • the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis case);
  • the right to a clean environment;
  • the right to food, health and shelter;
  • the right to education (later Art 21A);
  • the right to privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017);
  • the right to speedy trial and legal aid;
  • protection against sexual harassment at work (Vishaka guidelines).
• It also made the rights of bonded labourers, prisoners and children more effective.

Judicial activism (PIL) protects rights of the disadvantaged and has greatly expanded Article 21 to include livelihood, environment, food, education, privacy, legal aid and more.

Topic checklist

• Independence of the judiciary
• Structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
• Judicial activism and PIL
• Judicial review and basic structure
• Judiciary and Parliament; judiciary and rights

Total questions answered: 10 of 10