“If a Prime Minister and law minister cannot be trusted with appointment of judges its a huge question” – Indian law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad
The three pillars of a democracy are the judiciary, legislature and the executive. In India, at least the judiciary is elected by a perfect mix of the law makers, law enforcers and law keepers. This balance is very well maintained and is delicate. Even if one of the three bodies is overpowered, even a little, it can collapse the whole system on which a democracy runs. Now, recently India’s law minister did make a controversial statement, questioning the whole procedure of electing the judiciary. This brings us to a very important question – should the executive elect the judiciary?
In India, the election of the judiciary does not only involve the existing judiciary itself but also the opposition, ensuring that only unbiased and judges with merit can be appointed. But taking away this power from the opposition and the judiciary is to make a mockery of this system called democracy.
In a dictatorship and a monarchy, the idea of the executive (Read as -the führer) appointing the judiciary doesn’t seem to bad. Instead, it is quite liberal to have a working judiciary at all however in a democracy, it is outrageous. As it is, a large number of governmental and security agencies come under the executives mandate and an independent judiciary is essential to maintain the sanctity of a democracy.