Judicial Conduct Regulation Regimes in India and the United
Kingdom: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Judicial conduct regulation regimes have a vital role in upholding judicial independence, judicial conduct standards and public trust in the judiciary. However, there is no one right way to regulate judicial conduct. As this thesis underlines, the jurisdictions under study (i.e., England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and India) have adopted different approaches to judicial regulation. In India, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, internal mechanisms are primarily responsible for judicial regulation, whereas mostly arm-length bodies carry out similar work in England and Wales. Notwithstanding the structural and functional differences these mechanisms bear, they must administer regulatory protocols fairly and consistently across the judicial hierarchies in the respective jurisdictions. Against this backdrop, the thesis attempts to answer the following question: Do regulatory mechanisms in India and the UK uphold judicial independence and effectively enforce the standards of judicial conduct? As regards India, the thesis draws on empirical data collected from 110 subject experts, whereas it engages in statistical and critical analysis in answering the question in relation to the UK. With respect to India, the study finds that the internal regulatory mechanisms for both higher and subordinate judiciaries do not adequately safeguard judicial independence and that the mechanisms are ineffective in enforcing the standards of judicial conduct. In contrast, the study finds that the regulatory mechanisms in the UK are effective in enforcing the standards of judicial conduct. However, the regulatory architecture in the UK offers inadequate safeguards to (individual and internal) judicial independence. The study concludes that there are notable flaws in the regulatory architecture of India and the UK, particularly in addressing abuses of disciplinary discretion by senior judges, violations of regulatory protocols by first-tier bodies, and the unfair and inconsistent application of regulatory processes by investigative authorities.