Judicial Appointments-Is the discourse itself misconstrued?

On 16th October 2015, Hon. SC exercising its power of judicial review struck down the 99th constitutional amendment. The 99th constitutional amendment sought to establish the National Judicial Appointment Commission(NJAC) for the purpose of appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The Hon. Supreme Court declared this constitutional amendment ultra vires.
Now let's examine the context in which this judgement was delivered. Appointment of judges to higher judiciary is governed by article 124 & article 217 of the Indian constitution. The language & the interpretation of the text is simple & lucid. Its natural interpretation implies that the judges would be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. This procedure was followed quite effectively in the 1st two decades post-independence. But the autocratic & dictatorial mindset of the Indira Gandhi Govt in 1970s developed a sense of mistrust between the judiciary & the executive. I regard the mid 70s era as the darkest period of indian judiciary. In the emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Hon. SC literally surrendered itself to those in power at that time. But paradoxically, we owe our freedom & literally our democracy to 1973 Keshwanand Bharti Case. This case established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' of the Indian Constitution & it effectively curtailed the absolute power of parliament to amend the constitution. That case established the supremacy of indian constitution. But a spate of dubious judicial appointments made in 1980s, awakened the conscience of indian judiciary. And in 1993 we had the 1st judges case, where the SC reinterpreted article 124 & article 217. It effectively made consultation process a binding one wherein the supremacy of Chief Justice was established over the executive in judicial appointments. And in 2nd judges case in 1998, Justice JS Verma developed the 'collegium system'. The role of the executive in judicial appointments was significantly reduced, almost nil.
The above mentioned is the brief history of how judicial appointments' procedure evolved in India. In its pristine form, article 124 & article 217 leave no iota of doubt that in the appointment of judges, supremacy of the judiciary is unquestionably the most important aspect. But how fair is the process of appointment when 5 people sitting inside closed doors decide as to who should be a judge or who shouldn't be a judge? What is the objective criteria while deciding who should be a judge? Who is accountable for non-meritorious appointments? And most importantly, can a sitting chief justice overrule the president of india? Is the power to appoint judges solely the prerogative of the judiciary?
While the NJAC sought to bring in more transparency & accountability in this entire process, it also brought along with it the dangers of the past. The fear of executive interference in judicial appointments was the main reason why NJAC was struck down by the Hon. SC. So have we reached a state where there is so much of mistrust between the two pillars of our democracy? Well, personally I feel SC struck down this provision out of fear of executive interference rather than strictly on judicial grounds.
The solution to this issue doesn't lie in introducing some other provision or legislation, but in restoring the credibility of the people at the helm both in the judiciary & the executive. Another wrong proposition in this entire debate is whether it's about the persons appointing the judges or about the criteria involved in appointing the judges. The entire debate is revolving around who will appoint the judges rather than on what basis they should be appointed. Again we must not forget the fact that finally any system is as good as the persons operating it. Some of the finest judges which indian judiciary has seen were appointed prior to 1993. Justice HR Khanna(the only dissenting judge in habeas corpus case) is an example of what fearless & independent judiciary is all about. This entire incident has exposed the open secret about immense mistrust between the two pillars of our democracy. In a healthy democracy, a sense of mutual respect is essential between these two pillars. And mutual respect doesn't imply concurrence on every issue, they must respectfully disagree with each other. Judiciary at loggerheads with executive is a sign of healthy democracy. But trust deficit between these two institutions exposes the systemic disorder in our democracy.
And as an ordinary citizen of india, I feel as long as these two institutions uphold & safeguard the rights of the individuals, everything else is secondary.
Finally, let's remember this is an emerging democracy so such agreements & disagreements are a part of it. Let's enjoy this entire evolutionary process of our indian democracy.