NCERT Solutions for Class 11 Political Science Chapter 6: Judiciary
These Class 11 Political Science Chapter 6 solutions cover Judiciary from the NCERT textbook Indian Constitution at Work (Reprint 2026–27). The chapter explains why we need an independent judiciary, how that independence is secured, the structure of the Indian judiciary, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (original, writ, appellate and advisory), the rise of judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the power of judicial review, and the evolving relationship between the judiciary and Parliament (the Kesavananda Bharati basic-structure doctrine). Below you will find every end-of-chapter Exercise question reproduced verbatim and answered in exam-ready style, plus key terms, extra practice, MCQs, Assertion–Reason and FAQs.
Class: 11Subject: Political ScienceBook: Indian Constitution at WorkChapter: 6Chapter Name: JudiciarySession: 2026–27
Chapter 6, Judiciary, shows that the judiciary is not merely a referee in private disputes but a powerful organ of government that upholds the rule of law and protects the Constitution. An independent judiciary — free from executive and legislative interference, with judges of fixed tenure, secure salaries and protection through contempt powers — is essential so that judges can act “without fear or favour.” The chapter traces the appointment process and the rise of the collegium system, the very difficult removal procedure (the Justice V. Ramaswami case), and the pyramidal single integrated judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts, district and subordinate courts). It details the Supreme Court’s original, writ, appellate and advisory jurisdiction, explains judicial activism and PIL (Hussainara Khatoon, Sunil Batra), the crucial power of judicial review, and the conflict and balance between Parliament and the judiciary, culminating in the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) basic-structure doctrine.
Key Concepts & Terms
Independence of judiciary: the executive and legislature must not restrain or interfere with the functioning and decisions of the judiciary, so that judges can do justice without fear or favour. It does not mean arbitrariness or absence of accountability — the judiciary is accountable to the Constitution, to democratic traditions and to the people.
Rule of law: the principle that all individuals — rich or poor, men or women, of any caste — are subject to the same law; protecting the rule of law and ensuring the supremacy of law is the principal role of the judiciary.
Collegium system: the procedure evolved by the Supreme Court whereby the Chief Justice of India recommends appointments in consultation with the four senior-most judges of the Court — the principle of collegiality.
Removal of judges: a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, through a motion passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament — a deliberately difficult procedure.
Single integrated judiciary: India has one pyramidal system — Supreme Court at the top, High Courts below, and district and subordinate courts at the base; lower courts work under the superintendence of higher courts.
Original jurisdiction: cases (especially federal disputes between the Union and States, or among States) that the Supreme Court can hear directly, without them going through lower courts first.
Writ jurisdiction: the power of the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) to issue writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto — to protect fundamental rights.
Appellate jurisdiction: the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal and can reconsider cases and legal issues decided by High Courts, and re-interpret the law or the Constitution.
Advisory jurisdiction: the President may refer a matter of public importance or one involving interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for advice; the Court is not bound to give it and the President is not bound to accept it.
Judicial review: the power of the Supreme Court (and High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of a law and declare it unconstitutional and inapplicable if it is inconsistent with the Constitution (the term itself is not mentioned in the Constitution).
Judicial activism & PIL: a proactive role of the judiciary, the chief instrument of which is Public Interest Litigation (PIL/SAL) — allowing public-spirited citizens and organisations to file petitions on behalf of those who cannot easily reach the courts (it emerged around 1979–1980).
Basic structure doctrine: laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) — there is a basic structure of the Constitution that nobody, not even Parliament through amendment, can violate, and the Court reserves the right to decide what is part of it.
NCERT Exercises — Full Solutions
All questions below are reproduced verbatim from the NCERT textbook’s end-of-chapter Exercises. Answers are original, written in exam-ready style.
1. What are the different ways in which the independence of the judiciary is ensured? Choose the odd ones out.
i. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is consulted in the appointment of other judges of Supreme Court.ii. Judges are generally not removed before the age of retirement.iii. Judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court.iv. Parliament has no say in the appointment of judges.
ANSWERThe independence of the judiciary in India is ensured through several measures: (a) the legislature is not involved in the appointment of judges, so party politics is kept out; (b) judges enjoy security of tenure and hold office till the age of retirement, being removable only by a very difficult procedure for proven misbehaviour or incapacity; (c) the salaries and allowances of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund and are not subject to the approval of the legislature; and (d) the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament (except during a removal motion), and the judiciary’s power to punish for contempt of court protects it from unfair criticism.The odd one out is statement (iii): “A judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court.” This is incorrect — the Supreme Court actually can transfer judges of High Courts, so this statement does not describe a measure ensuring judicial independence.(Statement (i) is also somewhat odd as worded, because the most important safeguards listed in the chapter are the non-involvement of the legislature in appointments, security of tenure and financial independence; consultation with the CJI describes the appointment process rather than a core guarantee of independence. The clearly wrong/odd factual statement, however, is (iii).)
2. Does independence of the judiciary mean that the judiciary is not accountable to any one? Write your answer in not more than 100 words.
ANSWERNo. Independence of the judiciary does not mean arbitrariness or the absence of accountability. It only means that the judiciary should be free from the control of the executive and the legislature so that judges can decide cases without fear or favour. As a part of the democratic political structure, the judiciary is fully accountable — to the Constitution, to democratic traditions and to the people of the country. Judges must act within the limits set by the Constitution, give reasoned decisions, and can be removed for proven misbehaviour or incapacity. Independence and accountability thus go together.
3. What are the different provisions in the constitution in order to maintain the independence of judiciary?
ANSWERThe Constitution maintains the independence of the judiciary through the following provisions:1. Appointment kept free of party politics: the legislature is not involved in appointing judges; appointments require legal experience and expertise, not political loyalty, and the collegium of senior judges plays the key role.2. Security of tenure: judges hold office till the age of retirement and can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, so they need not please anyone to keep their posts.3. Difficult removal procedure: a removal motion must be passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, making removal almost impossible without broad consensus.4. Financial independence: the salaries and allowances of judges are not subject to the approval of the legislature, so the executive and legislature cannot use money to pressurise the judiciary.5. Protection from criticism: the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament except during a removal proceeding, and the judiciary’s power to punish for contempt of court shields it from unfair attack — allowing it to adjudicate without fear.
4. Read the news report below and identify the following aspects:
√ What is the case about?√ Who has been the beneficiary in the case?√ Who is the petitioner in the case?√ Visualise what would have been the different arguments put forward by the company.√ What arguments would the farmers have put forward?[News report: “Supreme Court orders REL to pay Rs 300 crore to Dahanu farmers” — the Supreme Court ordered Reliance Energy to pay Rs. 300 crore to chikoo growers of the Dahanu area near Mumbai who petitioned against pollution from Reliance’s thermal power plant, which had devastated the region’s agriculture, fisheries and forests; the pollution-control unit ordered earlier had not been set up.]
ANSWERWhat the case is about: It is about environmental pollution caused by a thermal power plant in the Dahanu region. Fly ash and sulphur emissions from the plant entered the groundwater and polluted the entire ecosystem, ruining the chikoo (sapota) crop, fisheries and forests. Despite a Supreme Court order, the company had not set up the required pollution-control unit, so the Court ordered Reliance Energy to pay Rs. 300 crore.Beneficiary: the chikoo-growing farmers and the people of the Dahanu area (and the environment), who received compensation and protection of their right to a clean environment.Petitioner: the chikoo growers (farmers) of the Dahanu area, supported by environmentalists, who moved the court against the pollution.Likely arguments of the company: that it had only recently (2003) acquired the thermal station and had re-submitted a schedule for installing the pollution-control plant; that the plant provided essential electricity and employment; that the pollution and crop failure had other causes; and that Rs. 300 crore was excessive and would harm the power supply.Likely arguments of the farmers: that the plant’s fly ash and emissions destroyed their crops, fisheries and forests and polluted the groundwater, violating their right to livelihood and to a clean environment; that the company had ignored earlier Supreme Court and Dahanu Authority orders for years; and that the polluter must pay for the damage and compensate those who suffered.
5. Read the following news report and,
√ Identify the governments at different levels√ Identify the role of Supreme Court√ What elements of the working of judiciary and executive can you identify in it?√ Identify the policy issues, matters related to legislation, implementation and interpretation of the law involved in this case.[News report: “Centre, Delhi join hands on CNG issue” — the Centre and the Delhi Government decided to jointly approach the Supreme Court to seek a dual-fuel policy and to allow low-sulphur diesel buses, while the Court had refused to relax the CNG norm for the city’s buses.]
ANSWERGovernments at different levels: the Union (Central) Government — represented by the Union Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister, Mr. Ram Naik — and the State Government of Delhi, represented by Chief Minister Ms. Sheila Dikshit.Role of the Supreme Court: the Court had directed that the city’s commercial vehicles/buses run on CNG to reduce pollution, set a deadline for conversion, and refused to relax the CNG norm for buses (though it clarified it had not insisted on CNG for taxis and auto-rickshaws). Both governments had to approach the Court to seek any change or extension of these directives — showing the Court’s power to give binding orders to the executive on a public-interest matter (clean air).Elements of judiciary and executive at work: the judiciary issued and enforced directions to protect citizens’ right to clean air; the executive (Centre and State) had the task of implementing those directions — arranging CNG supply, the bus fleet and infrastructure — and could only request modification by filing affidavits before the Court. This illustrates judicial activism and the executive’s duty of implementation.Policy, legislation, implementation and interpretation: the policy issue is reducing vehicular air pollution (single-fuel CNG vs. dual-fuel/low-sulphur diesel and the Auto Fuel Policy under the Mashelkar Committee); implementation involves converting some 10,000 buses to CNG, building filling stations and ensuring fuel supply; interpretation/legislation involves the Court interpreting and enforcing environmental norms and the standards (Euro-II, sulphur limits) the executive must follow.
6. The following is a statement about Ecuador. What similarities or differences do you find between this example and the judicial system in India?
[Statement: In Ecuador (and elsewhere in South America) judges are not forced to respect the rulings of higher courts in previous cases; an appellate judge need not give a written, reasoned decision, and may rule one way today and the opposite way in a similar case tomorrow without explaining why.]
ANSWERDifferences: The Indian judicial system is very different from the one described for Ecuador. In India, the judiciary is a single integrated system in which the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts, and lower courts must follow the precedents and rulings of higher courts. Courts give reasoned, written judgements explaining the legal basis of their decisions, and a body of judicial precedent (case law) guides future cases, so the law is consistent and predictable. In Ecuador, by contrast, higher-court rulings are not binding, written reasons are not required, and a judge may decide similar cases differently without explanation — making the system uncertain.Similarities: Both are independent judicial systems meant to settle disputes and deliver justice within their constitutions. The key difference is the role of precedent and reasoned judgements, which give the Indian system far greater certainty and accountability.
7. Read the following statements: Match them with the different jurisdictions the Supreme Court can exercise – Original, Appellate, and Advisory.
√ The government wanted to know if it can pass a law about the citizenship status of residents of Pakistan-occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir.√ In order to resolve the dispute about river Cauvery the government of Tamil Nadu wants to approach the court.√ Court rejected the appeal by people against the eviction from the dam site.
ANSWER
Statement
Jurisdiction
The government wanted to know if it can pass a law about the citizenship status of residents of Pakistan-occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir.
Advisory Jurisdiction — the President/government seeks the Court’s opinion on a matter of public importance/interpretation of the Constitution.
To resolve the dispute about river Cauvery, the government of Tamil Nadu wants to approach the court.
Original Jurisdiction — a federal dispute between States goes directly to the Supreme Court.
Court rejected the appeal by people against the eviction from the dam site.
Appellate Jurisdiction — the Court is hearing an appeal against a lower court’s decision.
8. In what way can public interest litigation help the poor?
ANSWERPublic Interest Litigation (PIL) helps the poor in several important ways:1. Easier access to justice: ordinarily a person can approach the court only if personally aggrieved. Through PIL, public-spirited citizens, social organisations and lawyers can file petitions on behalf of the poor and deprived who cannot easily reach the courts themselves.2. Simpler procedure: courts began considering cases even on the basis of newspaper reports and postal complaints (as in Hussainara Khatoon and Sunil Batra), so the poor need not face costly, complicated procedures.3. Expanded rights: through PIL the courts widened the idea of rights to include clean air, unpolluted water and decent living conditions, and took up the rights of under-trial prisoners, bonded and child labourers, and victims of exploitation.In short, PIL has made fundamental rights real and meaningful for the poor and disadvantaged sections of society.
9. Do you think that judicial activism can lead to a conflict between the judiciary and the executive? Why?
ANSWERYes, judicial activism can lead to conflict between the judiciary and the executive. Judicial activism has blurred the line of distinction between the executive and legislature on one side and the judiciary on the other, because the courts have begun resolving questions that really belong to the executive.For instance, matters such as reducing air or sound pollution, investigating cases of corruption, or bringing about electoral reform are not strictly the duty of the judiciary — they are to be handled by the administration under the supervision of the legislature. When the courts give directions to executive agencies (as in the hawala case or the CNG case), the executive may feel that its powers and jurisdiction are being encroached upon.Democratic government rests on each organ respecting the powers and jurisdiction of the others. By stepping into the executive’s domain, judicial activism can strain this delicate balance and create conflict, even though it has also forced executive accountability and protected citizens’ rights.
10. How is judicial activism related to the protection of fundamental rights? Has it helped in expanding the scope of fundamental rights?
ANSWERRelation to protection of fundamental rights: Judicial activism, working chiefly through PIL, has strengthened the judiciary’s role as the protector of fundamental rights. By allowing public-spirited citizens and organisations to approach the courts on behalf of others, it made it possible for the rights of those who could not easily reach the courts — under-trial prisoners, bonded labourers, exploited children and the poor — to be protected. The courts took up cases such as the blinding of jail inmates, inhuman conditions in stone quarries and sexual exploitation of children, giving real meaning to rights like the right against exploitation.Yes, it has expanded the scope of fundamental rights. Through PIL and the post-1980 activism, the judiciary widened the idea of rights to include clean air, unpolluted water and decent living conditions as rights of the entire society. It also strengthened the right to a free and fair electoral system by directing candidates to file affidavits about their assets, income and educational qualifications. Thus judicial activism has both protected and broadened the meaning of fundamental rights, though it has also overburdened the courts and at times disturbed the balance among the organs of government.
Extra Practice Questions
Short Answer Type Questions
Q1. What is meant by the rule of law?
ANSWERThe rule of law means that all individuals — whether rich or poor, men or women, of forward or backward castes — are subject to the same law. Protecting the rule of law and ensuring the supremacy of law is the principal role of the judiciary, which it can perform only if it is independent of political pressures.
Q2. What is the collegium system?
ANSWERThe collegium system is the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court for appointing judges, under which the Chief Justice of India recommends names in consultation with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This established the principle of collegiality, so the decision of the group of senior judges carries the greatest weight in appointments.
Q3. Name the five writs the Supreme Court can issue.
ANSWERThe Supreme Court (under Article 32) and the High Courts (under Article 226) can issue five writs to protect fundamental rights: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto. Through these writs the Court can order the executive to act or not to act in a particular way.
Q4. What was decided in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)?
ANSWERIn the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) the Supreme Court ruled that there is a basic structure of the Constitution that nobody — not even Parliament through a constitutional amendment — can violate. It also held that the right to property was not part of the basic structure and could be abridged, and reserved to itself the right to decide what forms part of the basic structure.
Q5. Why is the removal of a judge a very difficult procedure?
ANSWERA judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, through a motion containing the charges that must be passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. Because such consensus is hard to obtain, removal is almost impossible — as the Justice V. Ramaswami case (1991–93) showed — and this difficulty gives judges security of office and independence.
Long Answer Type Questions
Q1. Explain the original, writ, appellate and advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.
ANSWERThe Supreme Court of India exercises four main types of jurisdiction. Under its original jurisdiction, it directly hears cases involving federal disputes between the Union and the States or among the States; it alone can deal with such cases and acts as an umpire in federal matters, interpreting the powers of the Union and the States. Under its writ jurisdiction (Article 32), any person whose fundamental right is violated can move the Court directly, which can issue writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto; High Courts too can issue writs (Article 226). Under its appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal: a person can appeal against High Court decisions (where the High Court certifies a serious question of law/Constitution, or in death-sentence cases), and the Court can reconsider the case and give a new interpretation. Under its advisory jurisdiction, the President may refer a matter of public importance or one involving interpretation of the Constitution to the Court for advice — though the Court is not bound to give it and the President is not bound to accept it. In addition, the Court can grant special leave to appeal from any court in India and can review its own judgements.
Q2. Discuss the rise of judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, with its positive and negative effects.
ANSWERJudicial activism refers to a proactive role of the judiciary, the chief instrument of which is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Action Litigation (SAL). Traditionally, only a personally aggrieved person could approach the courts, but around 1979 the Supreme Court began hearing cases filed by others on behalf of the aggrieved — the Hussainara Khatoon case (about Bihar under-trials, 1979) and the Sunil Batra case (about a Tihar prisoner, 1980) were early PILs. This opened the gates for public-spirited citizens and organisations to seek protection of the rights of the poor and the environment. Positive effects: PIL democratised the judicial system by giving access to groups as well as individuals, forced executive accountability, made elections fairer (affidavits of assets and qualifications), and expanded rights to include clean air, water and decent living. Negative effects: the large number of PILs has overburdened the courts, and a proactive judiciary has blurred the line between the judiciary and the executive/legislature — the courts have taken up matters such as pollution control and electoral reform that belong to the administration, straining the delicate balance among the three organs of government.
Q3. Describe the relationship and conflict between the judiciary and Parliament in India.
ANSWERThe Indian Constitution is based on a delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances: Parliament is supreme in making laws and amending the Constitution, the executive in implementing them, and the judiciary in settling disputes and deciding whether laws accord with the Constitution. Despite this, conflict between Parliament and the judiciary has been a recurrent theme. Soon after the Constitution came into force, a controversy arose over Parliament’s power to restrict the right to property for land reforms; the Court held that Parliament could not abridge fundamental rights even by amendment. The central issues were the scope of the right to property, and the extent of Parliament’s power to curtail fundamental rights and to amend the Constitution. This conflict became very serious between 1967 and 1973 and culminated in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), where the Court ruled that Parliament cannot violate the basic structure of the Constitution even through amendment, and reserved to itself the right to decide what the basic structure includes. The removal of the right to property from the list of fundamental rights in 1979 eased the conflict. Yet issues remain — whether the judiciary can regulate the internal functioning of legislatures, and the limits on each organ criticising the other — showing how important it is for each organ to respect the authority of the others.
MCQs & Assertion–Reason
1. The principal role of the judiciary is to:
(a) make laws (b) implement laws (c) protect the rule of law and ensure supremacy of law (d) collect taxes
2. The collegium for recommending appointments consists of the Chief Justice of India and the:
(a) Prime Minister (b) four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court (c) President (d) Law Minister
3. A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed only on the ground of:
(a) old age (b) political opposition (c) proven misbehaviour or incapacity (d) a simple majority vote
4. Disputes between the Union and the States are heard by the Supreme Court under its:
For each Assertion–Reason question, choose: (A) Both true and the Reason correctly explains the Assertion; (B) Both true but the Reason is not the correct explanation; (C) Assertion true, Reason false; (D) Assertion false, Reason true.
A-R 1. Assertion: An independent judiciary is necessary in a democracy.
Reason: Independence allows judges to perform their functions without fear or favour and protect the rule of law.
A-R 2. Assertion: Independence of the judiciary means the judiciary is not accountable to anyone.
Reason: The judiciary is accountable to the Constitution, to democratic traditions and to the people of the country.
A-R 3. Assertion: The salaries and allowances of judges are not subject to the approval of the legislature.
Reason: Financial independence helps protect the judiciary from pressure by the executive and the legislature.
A-R 4. Assertion: India has separate State court systems like some other federal countries.
Reason: The Constitution of India provides for a single integrated judicial system with the Supreme Court at the top.
A-R 5. Assertion: Judicial activism can strain the balance among the organs of government.
Reason: Through PIL the courts sometimes take up matters that belong to the executive, blurring the distinction between organs.
Answer key: 1-(A), 2-(D), 3-(A), 4-(D), 5-(A).
Exam Tips & Common Mistakes
How to score full marks in this chapter
Memorise the measures that ensure judicial independence (no legislative role in appointment, security of tenure, difficult removal, financial independence, contempt power) and present them as clear points. Distinguish the four jurisdictions of the Supreme Court (original, writ, appellate, advisory) with one line each, and remember the key Articles — 32 (writs by SC), 226 (writs by HC), 13 (declaring a law unconstitutional), 137 (review of its own judgements), 144 (authorities act in aid of the SC). Always cite the textbook’s examples — the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) basic-structure ruling, the Justice V. Ramaswami removal case, and early PILs (Hussainara Khatoon, Sunil Batra). For activism questions, give both its benefits and its drawbacks.
Common mistakes to avoid
Saying independence of the judiciary means “no accountability” — it is accountable to the Constitution, traditions and the people.
Confusing judicial review (examining the constitutionality of a law) with writ jurisdiction (orders to protect rights) or with judicial activism (a proactive role through PIL).
Mixing up the jurisdictions — federal disputes = original; appeals = appellate; President’s reference = advisory.
Writing that High Court judges cannot be transferred — the Supreme Court can transfer them.
Forgetting that advisory opinions are not binding on the President and the Court is not bound to give them.
Stating that abundant PILs are only good — mention that they overburden courts and blur the separation of powers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Chapter 6 of Class 11 Political Science (Indian Constitution at Work) about?
Chapter 6, Judiciary, explains why an independent judiciary is needed, how its independence is ensured, the structure of the Indian judiciary, the original, writ, appellate and advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, judicial activism and PIL, the power of judicial review, and the relationship and conflict between the judiciary and Parliament (the Kesavananda Bharati basic-structure doctrine).
What is judicial review and how is it different from a writ?
Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court (and High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of a law and declare it unconstitutional if it is inconsistent with the Constitution. A writ (such as Habeas Corpus or Mandamus) is a specific order the Court issues to protect a person’s fundamental rights and direct the executive to act or not act in a particular way. Review concerns the validity of laws; writs concern the protection of individual rights.
How many questions are in the Chapter 6 Judiciary exercise?
The end-of-chapter Exercises in Chapter 6, Judiciary, contain 10 questions — including theory questions, “odd one out” and matching tasks, and news-report analysis questions — all answered step by step on this page.
