Do you think that executive should have the power to appoint judges?
Giving the executive sole power to appoint judges has been controversial. The appointment of judges is part of the political process and it makes a difference who serves in the Supreme Court and High Courts, as it affects how the Constitution is interpreted and the fate of legislations enacted.
If the executive has complete control over appointments, it may influence the independence of the judiciary. The political philosophy of judges matters in deciding whether the judiciary is active and assertive or controlled and committed. Therefore, the Supreme Court has established the principle of collegiality, where the Chief Justice recommends names in consultation with four senior-most judges. At present, the decision of the group of senior judges carries greater weight in appointments, ensuring that both the Supreme Court and the Council of Ministers play an important role.
Explanation
The textbook discusses how judicial appointments have evolved in India. Initially, the executive (through the Council of Ministers) had the final say in appointments. However, the Supreme Court through various judgments between 1982-1998 established the collegium system, giving primacy to the judiciary in appointments. This was done to protect judicial independence from executive interference. The answer reflects this balance between executive involvement and judicial primacy as described in the context.