A quasi-judicial body is a non-judicial agency that has the authority to interpret laws. These entities’ powers and processes are comparable to those of courts of law, such as an arbitrator or a tribunal board. They are supposed to assess facts impartially and provide answers to provide the basis for governmental action. Their jurisdiction is confined to land use, financial markets, zoning, public standards, and so on.
A quasi-judicial body’s activities provide remedies for problems; they are also authorised to impose legal penalties that may influence the rights of private parties through regulation. A quasi-judicial entity does not have to look like a court of law; for example, the Indian Election Commission is a quasi-judicial organisation that does not look like a court of law. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, National Human Rights Commission, SEBI, Central Information Commission, and others are instances of quasi-judicial agencies in India.
The following quasi-judicial entities can be established to serve certain purposes:
The central administrative tribunal is in charge of handling civil service issues. For example, identifying the age of public workers in the event of a disagreement.
The National Human Rights Commission adjudicates matters involving human rights violations. They examine human rights violations and provide recommendations to prevent them.
National river water dispute tribunal: This organisation resolves disputes between governments over water distribution. They have the authority to make water-sharing awards to contending states.
The election commission is in charge of organising, coordinating, and monitoring elections. It also has some judicial powers, such as assessing and maintaining a code of conduct, as well as deciding legislator disqualification.
More regulatory bodies: In addition to the bodies listed above, there are several other bodies that maintain openness in the market economy, such as the SEBI, TRAI, and IRDA. They also have the authority to levy fines for rule violations.
The following are the characteristics of quasi-judicial bodies:
Adjudicating Disputes: Because quasi-judicial entities adjudicate and decide fines, parties can turn to them for justice without having to go through the inconvenience of contacting the judiciary. The conflicts might be monetary, the conduct of regulations, or any problem not directly associated with the judiciary. Tribunals, for example, are quasi-judicial entities that seek peaceful solutions to disputes between two parties, most notably governments.
Nature of the quasi-judicial entities: These bodies might be statutory, regulatory, or constitutional. The National Human Rights Commission is a statutory entity, whereas the Finance Commission is a constitutional body and the SEBI is a regulatory body all these entities fulfil certain judicial tasks as well.
Heads of the bodies: Unlike the judiciary, which is led by a judge, these bodies are led by experts in fields like as finance, economics, and law.
Limited powers: Unlike the court, these bodies have limited powers; they can only rule on situations that fall within their area of competence. The Company Law Appellate Tribunal, for example, can rule on disputes involving company governance and operation, but its powers are restricted to this.
Punishment authority: These bodies are not only consultative; they have the authority to punish in situations under their jurisdiction. For example, the Consumer Court of India resolves consumer claims and penalises companies that engage in illegal acts.
Judicial review: These bodies’ findings can be contested in a court of law, and the judiciary’s decision is final.
Because of their favourable influence, quasi-judicial entities are becoming increasingly popular. The following are the benefits of quasi-judicial bodies
Cost-effective: Tribunals are less expensive than traditional court systems. The tribunals’ low cost encourages individuals to seek justice and address their concerns.
The tribunals do not need lengthy or complicated procedures for submitting applications. These bodies are accessible, free from complexities and they proceed more fast and efficiently under professional supervision.
Sharing of workload: The tribunals by taking up many cases minimise the workload of the courts. The National Green Tribunal, for example, made decisions on environmental and pollution issues.
They are more efficient and allow faster redressal of problems.
Expert knowledge: A tribunal consists of experienced and informed persons who readily comprehend the complexities of the matter brought before them therefore offering the proper solution to the problem
The quasi-judicial entities are also saddled with several concerns, including the following:
The notion of quasi-judicial bodies is new to India; as a result, these organisations are frequently understaffed and overburdened with cases, rendering the entire goal of expedited justice ineffectual.
The Tribunals’ rulings and judgments are frequently contested in courts of law, which undermines the fundamental purpose of a quasi-judicial organisation.
The tribunals’ low cost encourages individuals to fight for justice, but it also attracts a large number of bogus cases.
The quasi-judicial organisations are an essential component of the Indian federation that ensures citizens’ access to justice. It works well by decreasing the workload of the judiciary and offering swift justice to those who have been wronged. However, the government must take positive actions to close the gaps in the operation of these agencies in order to make them more effective and responsive to the demands of the people of the country.
The Quasi-judicial bodies are an indispensable entity of the Indian federation that guarantees the citizens of the country their share of justice. It functions effectively by reducing the workload of the judiciary and providing speedy justice to the aggrieved.
For deep details, you can read the full article. Click the link below :
