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 practises.

The twin principles of Judicial independence and judicial accountability have been the central theme of various debates and discussions in almost all democratic countries of the world which cherish the golden principle of Rule of Law. The judicial system of India and UK is converging in following aspects:

1. Judiciary is the highest Interpreter of the laws, byelaws.
2. Action of the executive can be declared as Ultra Vires by the Judiciary.
3. The Rule of Law in Britain is safeguarded by the provision that judges can only be removed from office for serious misbehaviour and according to a procedure requiring the consent of both the Houses of Parliament.

It is diverging in the following respects:

1. In India, the system of appointment for the judges is collegium system, and in the UK, the Judicial appointment commission appoints judges.

2. Jury trials were abolished in most Indian courts by the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, while it exists in the UK.

3. In the case of the British system, the lack of concept of Basic Structure makes amending power of the Parliament supersede any judicial pronouncement. Whereas, in case of the Indian Judiciary system, the concept of Basic Structure has provided a potent tool to Judiciary by which it can scuttle down any Executive or Legislative action, which it deems as against the basic spirit of the Constitution.

4. In the British system, there is a common Law system. It means law is developed by the Judges through their decision, order or judgement.

5. In India, there is a 3-tier system for Judiciary and No such system is in the UK.