EN हिं

NCERT Solutions Exploring Society: India and Beyond Chapter 6 –155The Judiciary — LET’S EXPLORE

Book page 154 Updated on2026-09-05

Q1.
What might happen if one of the organs — Legislature, Executive, Judiciary — had all the power? How could it affect the rights of people? Discuss with your classmates how each organ checks the others. For example, how does the Legislature question the actions of the Executive? How does the Judiciary make sure that laws and government actions respect the Constitution? Do you think there might be ways in which the actions of the Judiciary itself are reviewed?
Answer

If any one organ held all the power, it would become the judge of its own conduct — and rights would then depend on its goodwill rather than on the Constitution. Work through the three cases:

If this organ had all the power……what would be lostEffect on people’s rights
LegislatureNo one could test a law against the ConstitutionA law violating Fundamental Rights could not be struck down; a majority could take away the rights of a minority by simply voting for it
ExecutiveNo one could refuse it money, question it, or make it obey the law it enforcesOrders could replace laws; there would be no Question Hour, no committee, no budget vote — and no way to remove a government that stopped serving people
JudiciaryNo elected body would make policy; interpretation would have no limitsPeople could not change the law by voting, because the people who decide would not be the people they elect
LEGISLATURE Parliament — makes the laws EXECUTIVE PM and Council of Ministers JUDICIARY The courts — interpret the law Question Hour, committees, budget vote, collective responsibility Checks that a law does not violate the Constitution Steps in if the Constitution is violated while a law is being implemented No organ is the final judge of its own conduct.
Checks and balances: each organ is answerable to another, so that no one organ becomes too powerful.

How the Legislature questions the Executive. Through the Question Hour — typically the first hour of a sitting, when MPs ask ministers about government policies and activities and ministers must justify their actions and decisions. Through committees, before which ministries must explain their policies in writing, as Fig. 6.9 shows. Through the budget, since Parliament sanctions every rupee. And ultimately through collective responsibility: the Council of Ministers holds office only while it has the Lok Sabha’s support.

How the Judiciary keeps laws and actions constitutional. The Judiciary is the custodian of the Constitution. It is given the “unique and critical responsibility of checking that the laws passed by Parliament have not violated the Constitutional framework”; and if a violation occurs when the Executive implements a law, the Judiciary again has the power to step in. It does this by interpreting laws, resolving disputes and safeguarding fundamental rights, through its system of courts.

Is the Judiciary itself reviewed? Yes, in several ways, and it is worth being precise about them. A judgment of a lower court can be appealed to a higher one, so most decisions are examined again. The highest court can review its own decisions, and a later bench can take a different view of the law. Parliament can respond to a judgment by amending the law, or even the Constitution, within constitutional limits. Judges are appointed and, in grave cases, can be removed by Parliament through a special procedure. And every judgment is delivered in open court and published, so it is open to public and academic criticism. What is deliberately not allowed is anyone reviewing a judge’s decision on the basis of who they are — that independence is what lets a court rule against the government of the day.

Try this: in your group, take one right you value — say the right to education under Article 21A — and trace which organ would protect it at each stage: who created it, who funds and runs the schools, and whom you would approach if the school in your area were not provided.
Q2.
Can you find examples where the Judiciary has asked lawmakers to review a law? Can you find any instances when the implementation of a law has been questioned by the Judiciary?
Answer

Yes — and the chapter has already given you one of each, without labelling them as such. Start from these, then look for more.

1. The Judiciary prompting lawmakers — the RTE itself. In the early 1990s it was argued in court that free education was already part of the Right to Life, since education is necessary to lead a meaningful life. Parliamentary action followed: the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 inserted Article 21A, and the RTE Act came in 2009. That is a court reading changing what lawmakers felt they had to do.

2. The Judiciary questioning implementation. The chapter states the principle directly: “if a violation of the Constitution occurs when the laws are implemented by the Executive, the Judiciary again has the power to step in”. In practice courts do this constantly — ordering that a scheme actually reach the people it was written for, or that an official follow the procedure the law lays down.

How to find more, properly:
  • Search a news archive for the words “Supreme Court strikes down” or “High Court directs the government to” together with a year.
  • Use the courts’ own websites (sci.gov.in and your state High Court’s site), which publish judgments and press summaries.
  • For each example you find, write down four things: which law, who went to court, what the court said, and what Parliament or the government did afterwards. The fourth is the one students usually miss, and it is the one that shows the check working.
Keep the distinction clear: a court asking lawmakers to review a law is aimed at the law itself — does it fit the Constitution? A court questioning implementation is aimed at the Executive’s conduct — is the law being carried out the way it was written? The first is a check on the Legislature; the second is a check on the Executive. Both come from the same source: the Judiciary is the custodian of the Constitution, not a rival policymaker, and it acts when a case is brought before it.
Was this helpful? Report an error