Given the principle of checks and balances imbibed in the Indian Constitution, occasional friction between different wings of the government is obvious. These conflicts are often circumstantial and not devoid of mutual reverence. The ongoing conflict between the judiciary and the executive, however, reeks of a planned hostility aimed at achieving desired ends. The return of 19 of the 21 names recommended by the collegium for appointment of High Court judges is shocking but not completely unexpected. Among the 19 names sent back by the government, 10 had been sent for reconsideration while nine were fresh names. The government's move is in sync with the relentless diatribe thrown by the Union Law Minister against the Supreme Court's collegium system on a daily basis, lately. This undignified infighting paints both the Central government and the judiciary in poor light. The general perception afloat is that the Central government, unhappy with the striking down of the National Judicial Appointment Committee (NJAC) by the Supreme Court in 2015 — which paved the way for revival of the collegium system — has been trying to delegitimize it. The Collegium system has been in practice since the early 1990s. Even after its revival in 2015, seven years have passed now. At this point in time, the Union Law Minister has developed a fresh curiosity, "under which provision the collegium system has been prescribed?" His assertion is that the system is opaque and unconstitutional. As far as the opacity of the system is concerned, the Law Minister's reservations are not completely unfounded. However, regarding the constitutionality, it must be remembered that the collegium system has been shaped by two Supreme Court rulings — Second Judges Case in 1993 and Third Judges Case in 1998. Since the Supreme Court holds the uncontested mandate of interpreting the Constitution, the legitimacy of the collegium system cannot be rejected outrightly. There are flaws in the system, and more transparency and accountability could have been desirable. But neither the routine diatribe of Union Law Minister nor the deliberate holding back of names by the Centre is the correct means to achieve the desirable traits. The Central government's manoeuvrings reek of executive arrogance and, if anyhow, they attract retaliation from the judiciary, outcomes will be unsavoury. More importantly, holding back of names reiterated by the judiciary violates the law of the land. As far as legal convention goes, the executive is bound to clear the names if the collegium reiterates them after reconsideration. The recent violation of the convention by the Central government is not an exceptional case. The government has been doing it lately even after double and triple reiterations by the collegium. In fact, the Supreme Court had to put forth the question whether the government's reluctance to clear the names was on account of the court's rejection of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. If that be the case, the moves made by the Central government can be safely termed as immature. It may be noted here that the collegium system, vis-à-vis the NJAC, stands for something — the autonomy of the judiciary in terms of judicial appointments. The functioning efficiency of the collegium can be questioned but the principles it is based upon cannot be rejected in an outright manner. Pendency of vacancies has been another persistent shortcoming in the collegium system, and now it has come out in open that the Central government might be equally responsible for the malady. It appears that the Centre is trying to create an urgency to delegitimize the collegium system. This sledgehammer tactic could spell a death knell for the core principle of checks and balances which has kept our democracy on track till date. Efficiency of the collegium system is doubtable. A reform is indeed the need of the hour. The government must explore meaningful methods of establishing a consensus with the judiciary in this regard. It has to understand that imposition of executive will over judiciary is neither possible nor sustainable. Since NJAC was rejected by the Supreme Court, a more viable option, where autonomy of the judiciary is kept intact, has to be explored. Meanwhile, both the judiciary and executive wings of the government should come together to improve the collegium system so that general litigants do not suffer.