Question:easy

Each question below is followed by arguments. Choose the most appropriate choice from the options given.

Question: Should the Judiciary be independent of Executive and Legislature?
Argument I: Yes, this is necessary to ensure impartiality in the administration of Justice
Argument II: No, it will develop inertia in Executive and Legislature

Show Hint

Check whether each predicted consequence actually follows. Ask how judges being free of executive control could possibly make ministers idle.
Updated On: Oct 30, 2026
  • Argument I is strong
  • Argument II is strong
  • Both the arguments are strong
  • Both the arguments are weak
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Judge the two arguments by asking whether the harm or benefit each claims actually follows. An argument that names a real consequence tied to the issue is strong. An argument that asserts a consequence with no working mechanism behind it is weak, however grand it sounds.

  1. Argument I is strong: Consider what happens without independence. A large share of litigation in India is against the State: a tax demand, a land acquisition, a detention order, a policy notification. If the judge deciding such a case can be transferred, denied promotion or have his pay squeezed by the very government standing before him, the outcome is decided before the hearing begins. Security of tenure and protected service conditions exist precisely so that a judge can rule against the government without personal cost. So impartiality genuinely depends on independence, the argument is directly on the question, and it is strong. This is the answer.
  2. Argument II is strong: Trace the claimed chain and it snaps at the first link. How exactly would judges being free from executive control make ministers idle? The executive answers to Parliament and to voters, and the legislature answers to the electorate. Their drive to work has no connection with who controls the judges. The claim is asserted, never explained.
  3. Both the arguments are strong: This would need Argument II to survive, and it does not. The consequence it predicts has no mechanism, so it cannot be counted as strong.
  4. Both the arguments are weak: This would need Argument I to fail, and Argument I is in fact the classic and correct justification for an independent judiciary. Dismissing it is not defensible.

So the answer is option (A). Argument II also gets the direction backwards, because an independent court that strikes down sloppy law and arbitrary orders pushes the other branches to do better work, not to sit still.

Let's summarize:

  • Test whether the consequence an argument predicts actually follows from the proposal.
  • Impartiality genuinely requires independence, since the State is a frequent litigant.
  • Judicial independence has no mechanism by which it makes the other branches idle.

Only Argument I is strong, so option (A) is correct.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Statements and Arguments

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution