Why should the politicians not appoint judges in our country?

Why should the politicians not appoint judges in our country?
Prabhakar Sinha

The constitution of India vested the power to appoint judges in the Executive.
The system worked without any problem till 1973.
The trouble began when Indira Gandhi wanted 'a committed judiciary‘, that is, a judiciary committed not to the constitution but to the Executive meaning herself.
The point of conflict was Indira Gandhi’s claim that Parliament had unfettered power to amend the constitution. It could even establish a Monarchy by amending the constitution.

She claimed that the judiciary could not review a constitutional amendment (under Art.13 of the constitution as it could a normal Act /Ordinance).
In Kehsavanand Bharti 's case (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend any part of the constitution including the fundamental rights but not its basis structure.
For example, it could not end democracy or end the independence of the judiciary or end the secular character of the state, as they were the basic features of the constitution.

The court also held that what was basic feature would be decided by court from time to time when the point was raised.
The judgment gave almost full power to Parliament to amend the constitution but retained the power to save India from one party rule or life time President or P.M.. Such development had taken place in the countries which had won independence from foreign rules like India.
Indira Gandhi was mad with anger and superseded three senior judges, who had rejected her government 's claim and appointed Justice A.N..Ray, who was 4th, in seniority.
Again, in 1976 during the emergency, she claimed ( Shivkant Shukla v A.DM, Jabalpur ) that when the right to life and personal liberty was suspended, the court could not intervene even if a person were killed or tutored by the police for personal reasons.
The S.C. was so frightened that it upheld her claim by 4:1 majority. Again, Indira Gandhi superseded Justice H. R. Khanna, who had rejected her government's claim.

She had also transferred several High Court judges, who had rejected the government's claim in the MISA and other cases.
In 1993, by a judgment, the power to appoint judges was taken away from Executive and vested in the judiciary.
Politicians as a class are united in snatching the power from the judiciary and vesting it in the Executive.
We, the people, should favour a system, which is in our interest, we have seen how the Executive (Indira Gandhi) had assumed the power over our life and death and made us slaves by terrorizing the judiciary.
The State (government ) is the biggest and the most powerful litigant against us, the helpless citizens.
Shall we ever get justice against the government if the judges are their henchmen ?
The politicians are also the accused in thousands of cases.
Should the accused appoint judges ?
As it is , the police and the prosecution are already under the politicians (the government /.Executive ) and are used to save the guilty politicians and their men.

Would it be in the interest of justice, society and the people to give the power to appoint judges to this class of accused ?
Presently, we feel safe in opposing politicians because the judges are not their men or under them.
Shall we feel safe, if the judges are scared of the politicians as the S.P. or the D.M.?
And the most relevant fact is to see how the political class make appointments where it has the power.
No appointment or posting is made on merit or for public good.
They are made on extraneous considerations including on payment.
Would it be in our interest to have judges licking the boot of corrupt politicians and doing their bidding like the civil servants ?
There are shortcomings in the collegium system also, which must be removed.
The major accusation is that undeserving persons related to judges become judges.

There is truth in the allegation and the system should be improved without compromising the independence of the judiciary.
The National Judicial Appointment Commission, which was declared unconstitutional, was intended to give power to the Executive so that no one could be appointed to the higher judiciary without being beholden to the Executive.
Now , the government is trying to get the same power through the Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of judges.
It is demanding that it should have the final power to reject the recommendation of the collegium in the name of national security.
If this power is given to the government, no judge could be appointed without seeking the blessing of the Union Government.
It is said that nowhere else the judges appoint judges, but it is overlooked that in those countries politicians are also not as corrupt and criminalized as in ours.
In the U.S. it is the Senate, which approves/confirms the appointment of Supreme Court judges after calling them and questioning them in the Senate.
Also the Supreme Court judges do not retire in the U.S.
Every country develops a system most suited to it keeping its ground reality in mind.
India is also evolving its system based on its experience and the reality of the peculiar character of its political class.. That system is the best which guarantees justice without fear and favour.
We should favour that reform in the judicial appointment, which removes its shortcomings without compromising its independence.
Only an independent judiciary can guarantee our security and freedom and protect the interest of the society and the nation.