Posts

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. (10 marks)

Q. 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. (10 marks) - UPSC Mains 2020

judicial systems in India and UK


Introduction:

India and the UK share a common legal heritage based on the British Common Law system. However, with evolving constitutional frameworks and socio-political contexts, their judicial practices have witnessed both convergence and divergence in recent times.


Points of Convergence:

  1. Common Law Tradition:

    • Both follow the common law system, where judicial precedents are considered a source of law.

  2. Judicial Independence:

    • Both countries ensure the independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislature.

  3. Use of Judicial Review (to some extent in UK):

    • Though not as extensive as in India, UK courts review executive actions and ensure procedural fairness (e.g., proportionality test in administrative actions).

  4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) / Judicial Activism:

    • India pioneered PIL, but the UK has seen a rise in strategic litigation in matters like climate change, immigration, etc., reflecting a shared pro-people jurisprudence.

  5. Emphasis on Fundamental Rights:

    • India enforces Fundamental Rights under Part III; the UK incorporates Human Rights Act 1998, aligning with European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).


Points of Divergence:

  1. Nature of Constitution:

    • India has a written Constitution with a hierarchy of laws; the UK follows an unwritten and flexible constitutional setup.

  2. Scope of Judicial Review:

    • In India, courts can strike down laws violating the Constitution (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati case).

    • In the UK, Parliament is sovereign; courts can only declare incompatibility (e.g., under the Human Rights Act), but cannot invalidate laws.

  3. Appointment of Judges:

    • Indian judges are appointed through the Collegium system.

    • UK judges are appointed through an independent Judicial Appointments Commission — more transparent and institutionalized.

  4. Binding Nature of Precedents:

    • In India, Supreme Court decisions are binding on all lower courts.

    • In the UK, precedents can evolve more flexibly, and higher courts (e.g., Supreme Court) can depart from their own past judgments.

  5. Contempt of Court:

    • India has stricter contempt laws to protect the dignity of courts.

    • UK allows greater freedom of expression and criticism of judicial institutions.


Conclusion:

While both judicial systems stem from the same roots, India’s constitutional supremacy and activist judiciary set it apart from the UK’s parliamentary supremacy model. Still, both judiciaries continue to converge on matters of human rights, accountability, and progressive interpretations in tune with global democratic values.

Post a Comment