The correct option is To ensure that judges remain subservient to the ruling party..
Explanation
The Constitution of India ensures the independence of the judiciary to uphold the rule of law and protect the Constitution. A critical component of this independence is the security of tenure granted to judges, ensuring they are not subject to the whims of the executive or the legislature.
Analysis of the Rationale:
- The process for removing a Supreme Court judge is deliberately made difficult and rigorous. It requires an order by the President only after an address by Parliament has been presented to him in the same session for such removal.
- This address must be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (i.e., a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting).
- Options To provide security of office to the members of the judiciary., To ensure judges could function without fear or favour., and To prevent arbitrary removal by the executive or legislature. represent the true rationale behind this provision. The difficult procedure ensures that judges have security of office, can function without fear or favour, and are protected against arbitrary removal by the political executive or legislature.
- To ensure that judges remain subservient to the ruling party. contradicts the fundamental principle of judicial independence. The Constitution aims to insulate the judiciary from political pressure, not to make it subservient to the ruling party. Therefore, this was not a rationale for the provision.
Key Takeaway: The rigorous removal process for judges is a constitutional safeguard designed to ensure Security of Tenure, thereby upholding the Independence of the Judiciary against political interference.