The judicial system in India and UK seem to be converging as well diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. (Answer in 150 words)

India and the United Kingdom share a common-law heritage, yet their constitutional structures have produced both convergence and divergence in judicial practice.

• Both use adversarial proceedings, binding precedent and an independent professional judiciary.
• Judicial review, purposive interpretation and protection of human rights have expanded in both systems.
• Both have adopted modern case management, tribunal reforms and increasing use of technology.
• Public interest reasoning and proportionality have influenced rights adjudication in both jurisdictions.

• India has a written Constitution with constitutional supremacy; the UK follows parliamentary sovereignty and an uncodified constitution.
• The Indian Supreme Court can invalidate constitutional amendments subject to the basic-structure doctrine; UK courts cannot ordinarily strike down primary legislation.
• India permits broad public interest litigation and has developed continuing mandamus, whereas UK standing and institutional restraint are generally stricter.
• India follows a unified judicial system; the UK has separate jurisdictions for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Globalisation has encouraged convergence in rights-based adjudication, but constitutional design continues to preserve significant differences in judicial power and remedies.

Common law; judicial review; parliamentary sovereignty; constitutional supremacy; PIL; precedent; basic structure.