Should the judiciary be completely independent of the executive in a democratic country like India? Arguments: 1. Yes, because an independent judiciary helps to curb any unlawful activities or misuse of power by the executive. 2. No, because if the judiciary is fully independent the executive will not be able to take bold and quick measures.

Introduction / Context:
This question examines the principle of separation of powers in a democracy. The issue is whether the judiciary should be independent of the executive. One argument focuses on controlling unlawful acts by the executive, and the other claims that independence would prevent bold decisions by the executive.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement: Judiciary should be independent of the executive.
• Argument 1: Yes, independence helps curb unlawful acts of the executive.
• Argument 2: No, independence will prevent the executive from taking bold measures.
• We assume that rule of law and checks and balances are important for good governance.

Concept / Approach:
In constitutional theory, an independent judiciary is essential to review executive actions and protect citizens rights. Argument 1 supports exactly this role. Argument 2 is vague and implies that bold actions necessarily conflict with judicial review, which is not a sound or acceptable reasoning.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate argument 1. It correctly states that an independent judiciary can check the misuse of power by the executive. Step 2: This is central to democratic governance and is therefore a strong argument. Step 3: Evaluate argument 2. It suggests that the executive cannot take bold steps if the judiciary is independent, but bold steps that are lawful do not need to fear the courts. Step 4: Hence, argument 2 wrongly assumes that judicial independence is an obstacle to effective governance, making it weak.

Verification / Alternative check:
Look at stable democracies around the world. Most have independent judiciaries and yet their executives can act boldly within the framework of law.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options that show argument 2 as strong or both as strong ignore constitutional principles. The option that neither is strong is wrong because argument 1 clearly expresses a core democratic value. The option that the relation cannot be judged is unnecessary here.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes confuse speed of decision making with quality. Judicial checks may slow down some actions but protect citizens from arbitrary power.

Final Answer:
Therefore, only argument 1 is strong, and the correct option is the one that selects argument 1 alone as strong.