Quasi-Judicial Bodies, Features, Powers, Advantages, Challenges

Quasi-Judicial Bodies are government authorities that can make decisions like a court on specific matters. They hold hearings, examine evidence, and pass orders, but they are not regular courts. Their role is to provide specialized and speedy justice in areas such as elections, taxation, or administrative disputes. Examples include the Election Commission, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and Central Administrative Tribunal.

About Quasi-Judicial Bodies

• Quasi-judicial bodies are non-judicial organizations that act like courts. They have the power to resolve disputes, enforce laws, and even give punishments within their area of authority. Unlike regular courts, these bodies are often led by experts or specialists, not judges.
• They follow the principles of natural justice, which means they give a fair chance to everyone before making a decision. These bodies can interpret laws and make decisions in specific matters. Examples include tribunals, arbitration panels, and administrative agencies.
• Their main role is to provide quick and specialized justice without burdening regular courts, making the legal process faster and more efficient.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Features

• Resolving Disputes
  • Quasi-judicial bodies help people settle disputes without going to regular courts. They can hear cases, examine evidence, and give judgments or punishments within their area of work. This makes getting justice faster and easier for people.

• Limited Powers
  • These bodies usually handle specific areas, such as financial markets, employment, consumer issues, land, or company matters. For example, the Company Law Appellate Tribunal deals only with corporate governance and company disputes.

• Following Rules
  • Decisions of quasi-judicial bodies are mostly based on existing laws and predetermined rules, so their judgments are fair and predictable.

• Punishment Authority
  • They can punish those who break the law in their area. For instance, Consumer Courts in India can penalize companies that cheat or harm consumers.

• Led by Experts
  • Unlike courts, these bodies are usually headed by experts in fields like law, finance, or administration, not judges. This ensures that decisions are specialized and well-informed.

• Areas of Work

Quasi-judicial bodies may handle issues like:

• Breach of discipline
• Financial matters or trust violations
• Employment disputes
• Land use and zoning
• Public standards or regulations

• Legal Authority

• • Decisions of these bodies are legally binding in their domain, but they are limited to specific areas compared to regular courts. Some are created by law, while others may be appointed by a court if needed.

‹ ›

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Powers

Quasi-judicial bodies have powers similar to civil courts, but their authority is limited to specific areas given by law. Their main powers are explained below:

• Conducting Hearings
  • They can hold hearings to listen to both sides of a dispute. They can call witnesses and collect evidence before giving a decision.

• Summoning and Examining Witnesses
  • They have the power to summon people, make them appear before the authorities, take evidence on oath, and ask for important documents or public records.

• Determining Facts
  • After examining the evidence, they decide the facts of the case. This helps them understand what actually happened.

• Applying the Law
  • They apply the relevant law to the facts of the case and decide the legal rights and duties of the parties involved.

• Issuing Orders
  • They can pass legally binding orders. For example, they may direct a person to pay compensation, stop illegal activities, or follow certain conditions.

• Imposing Penalties
  • If someone does not follow their orders, they can impose fines or other penalties within their jurisdiction.

• Following Natural Justice

Quasi-judicial bodies follow the principles of natural justice. This means:

• Both sides are given a fair chance to present their case.
• Decisions are made without bias.
• Proper reasoning is given for judgments.

• Judicial Review

• • Their decisions can be challenged in High Courts or the Supreme Court. The judiciary has the final authority.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Advantages

• Cost-Effective: Quasi-judicial bodies are usually less expensive than regular courts. The procedures are simpler and require fewer formalities, so common people can seek justice without spending too much money.
• Hassle-Free and Simple Procedure: These bodies do not follow very strict or technical court procedures. The process is more flexible and easier to understand. Cases are handled by experts, which makes the system more user-friendly.
• Reduces Burden on Courts: Regular courts in India have a large number of pending cases. When tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies handle specialized matters, it reduces the workload of the judiciary. For example, environmental disputes are handled by the National Green Tribunal, which allows regular courts to focus on other cases.
• Speedy Justice: Since these bodies deal with specific types of cases only, they can decide matters faster. Their limited jurisdiction and simplified procedures help in delivering quicker judgments.
• Expert Decision-Making: Quasi-judicial bodies are often led by experts in fields like finance, environment, administration, or law. This ensures better understanding of technical issues and more practical decisions.
• Improved Access to Justice: By making dispute resolution easier, faster, and less costly, these bodies help improve access to justice for ordinary citizens.

Quasi-Judicial Bodies Challenges

• Lack of Independence: Some quasi-judicial bodies work under government departments. This may affect their independence and create doubts about fairness in decision-making.
• Limited Jurisdiction: Their powers are restricted to specific areas only. They cannot deal with all types of disputes like regular courts, which sometimes limits their effectiveness.
• Appointment and Service Issues: The appointment process of members is sometimes criticized for lack of transparency. Short tenure and executive control may affect the efficiency and impartiality of these bodies.
• Overlapping Jurisdiction: In some cases, the powers of different tribunals overlap. This can create confusion and delay in deciding which body should hear a case.
• Delay in Justice: Although they are meant to provide speedy justice, many tribunals also face delays due to vacancies, lack of staff, or increasing number of cases.
• Infrastructure and Resource Problems: Some quasi-judicial bodies suffer from poor infrastructure, shortage of technical experts, and inadequate funding.
• Judicial Interference and Appeals: Their decisions are often challenged in higher courts. Frequent appeals sometimes reduce their effectiveness and increase delays.

Some Important Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India

• Election Commission of India (ECI): The Election Commission of India has quasi-judicial powers in matters related to elections. It settles disputes between different groups of recognized political parties. It can also disqualify candidates who fail to submit their election expense reports within the time prescribed by law. This ensures free and fair elections in the country.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT): The National Green Tribunal deals with cases related to environmental protection and pollution control. It provides speedy justice in matters concerning forests, wildlife, and environmental damage. It can impose fines and order compensation for environmental harm.
• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): The Central Administrative Tribunal handles disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of central government employees. It reduces the burden on High Courts in service matters and ensures quicker resolution of administrative disputes.
• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): The National Human Rights Commission protects and promotes human rights in India. It inquires into complaints of human rights violations and can recommend action against authorities responsible for such violations.
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hears appeals against the orders passed by income tax authorities. Both taxpayers and the Income Tax Department can file appeals before ITAT. It helps in resolving tax disputes in a fair and specialized manner.
• Central Information Commission (CIC): The Central Information Commission is the highest appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It hears complaints and appeals against public authorities that fail to provide information. It promotes transparency and accountability in governance. Its decisions are subject to judicial review.

Difference Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies

While judicial bodies are regular constitutional courts with wide powers, quasi-judicial bodies are specialized authorities created to handle specific matters. They differ in terms of their authority, independence, jurisdiction, and procedure. The Difference Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies are discussed in detail below:

UPSC CSE Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Q.“National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in India can be most effective when its tasks are adequately supported by other mechanisms that ensure the accountability of a government. In light of the above observation assessthe role ofNHRC as an effective complement to the judiciary and other institutions, in promoting and protecting human rights standards. (2014) (200 words, 12.5 marks)

Q.“What is a quasi judicial body? Explain with the help of concrete examples.(2016) (200 words, 12.5 marks)

Q.“The Central Administrative Tribunal which was established for redressal of grievances and complaints by or against central government employees, nowadays is exercising its powers as an independent judicial authority.” Explain (2019) (150 words, 10 marks)

Q. Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analysing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures. (2021) (250 words, 15 marks)