Separation of powers — Should judiciary be independent of the executive? Statement: Should judiciary be independent of the executive? Arguments: I. Yes. This would help curb unlawful activities of the executive. II. No. The executive would not be able to take bold measures.

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic constitutional principle question. Judicial independence safeguards rule of law and checks arbitrary executive power. We evaluate which argument substantially supports or undermines that principle.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Independent judiciary reviews executive actions for legality.
• Executive decisiveness should still operate within constitutional bounds.
• Strong arguments rely on constitutional norms rather than speculative fears.

Concept / Approach:
Argument I ties independence to accountability and legality—core democratic values. Argument II claims independence hampers boldness, which is not a valid reason to reduce legal oversight.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Comparative constitutional practice overwhelmingly supports independent judiciaries to protect rights and ensure checks and balances.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• II strong / Either / Neither / Both: do not match the clear constitutional case for I.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming speed or boldness trumps legality; lawful boldness remains possible under judicial oversight.

Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong