The judicial systems in India and UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices.

Points of Convergence

Despite distinct evolutions, several key aspects of the Indian and UK judicial systems remain aligned:

• Common Law Tradition: Both systems are based on the principle of *stare decisis* (precedent), where past judicial decisions guide future rulings. This is a fundamental similarity inherited from the British legal system.
• Judicial Review: Both judiciaries exercise the power of judicial review, albeit with differing scopes. In both countries, courts can review the legality of executive and legislative actions.
• Independent Judiciary: Both nations strive for an independent judiciary, free from political interference, though the degree of independence is debated in both contexts.
• Adversarial System: Both follow an adversarial system of justice, where two opposing sides present their case before a neutral judge or jury.
• Hierarchy of Courts: Both systems have a hierarchical court structure, with lower courts subject to the rulings of higher courts. (Supreme Court at the apex in both).

Points of Divergence

Significant differences have emerged over time, reflecting differing constitutional frameworks and political philosophies:

• Constitutional Framework: India has a codified, written constitution (adopted in 1950) with entrenched fundamental rights, while the UK has an uncodified constitution based on statutes, conventions, and judicial precedents.
• Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy: The UK operates under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning Parliament is the supreme legal authority. India, however, follows the principle of constitutional supremacy, where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
• Fundamental Rights: India’s Constitution guarantees a comprehensive set of fundamental rights enforceable by the courts. While the UK has the Human Rights Act 1998, it doesn’t have the same entrenched constitutional status as Indian fundamental rights.
• Judicial Activism: The Indian judiciary has been more proactive in exercising judicial activism, particularly through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), than its UK counterpart. Landmark cases like MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) demonstrate this.
• Appointment of Judges: The process of appointing judges differs significantly. In the UK, the Judicial Appointments Commission plays a key role, aiming for transparency and meritocracy. In India, the collegium system, though facing criticism, dominates judicial appointments.
• Role of Precedent: While both follow precedent, the UK courts have greater flexibility in departing from precedent compared to the Indian Supreme Court, which generally adheres more strictly to its own past rulings.

Feature	India	UK
Constitution	Codified, Written	Uncodified
Supremacy	Constitutional Supremacy	Parliamentary Sovereignty
Judicial Activism	High (PIL)	Moderate
Appointment of Judges	Collegium System	Judicial Appointments Commission

Recent developments like the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on prorogation of Parliament (2019) demonstrate a strengthening of judicial review in the UK, potentially narrowing the divergence in this area. However, fundamental differences in constitutional philosophy remain.