The extent of independence of the judiciary is directly proportionate to the degree of mistrust between the executive and the judiciary. “President Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights”. A retired chief justice of India has broken his silence and, in a media interview, justified his acceptance of a high seat in the Council of States as a means to serve as an ambassador of good relations between the executive and the judiciary. This was countered by another retired judge in another media interface by saying that currently, the executive-judiciary bonhomie was at its peak, hence, there was no crying need to stir up this controversy by accepting such an appointment. The extent of independence of the judiciary is directly proportionate to the degree of mistrust between the executive and the judiciary of the nation. Put conversely, it is inverse to the extent of bonhomie prevalent between these two pillars. The celebrated case of Marbury against Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall gave the US’s Supreme Court the constitutional weapon of ‘judicial review’, was also born out of this mistrust. At its founding stages, the battle for the soul of the new nation was being fought between two conflicting ideas. One won a presidency and tried to nullify appointment warrants issued by the other’s president, just before he demitted office. The warrant had been signed but not delivered. Marbury, who had been appointed by the outgoing regime, invoked a law passed by Congress to directly take his cause to the highest court. Chief Justice Marshall had no sympathy for the new president. However, he did not want to rock the boat either. If the court ruled in favour of Marbury, there was no telling how the penny would fall. It is then that genius struck him. He ruled that the very law which allowed Marbury to directly come to the Supreme Court could not have been enacted by Congress. The court asserted the right to judicially review laws passed by Congress and yet seemingly ruled in favour of the president. A classic case of operation unsuccessful but patient (in this case, the rule of law) alive.