Quasi-Judicial Authority In India
Introduction
- A quasi-judicial body is a non-judicial entity that has the authority to interpret the law. It is a body, such as an arbitration panel or tribunal board, which may be a public administrative agency or an entity subject to contract law or private law, and which has been given authority and must follow procedures similar to those of a court of law or judge in order to establish the facts that will serve as the foundation for formal action. The legal rights, obligations, or privileges of certain persons may be affected by such acts, which have the power to correct a situation or impose legal sanctions.
Powers
Typically, such entities have adjudication authority in areas such as:
- Discipline infraction
- the rules of behavior
- faith in financial or other concerns
- Their jurisdiction is often restricted to a single, highly specialized field, such as land use and zoning, financial markets, employment law, public standards, or a particular set of an agency’s laws. Such a body’s judgments are frequently reached after a quasi-judicial process that may resemble a court.
Distinctions Between Judicial Bodies
The following are some significant distinctions between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies:
Quasi-judicial rulings often are not bound by precedent in common law, whereas judicial decisions are;
Judicial decisions may establish new common law in the absence of precedent, but quasi-judicial decisions must be grounded on existing legal precedent;
Quasi-judicial entities are not necessarily required to adhere to stringent court evidence and process norms;
Quasi-judicial entities shall conduct formal hearings only if required to do so by the laws, rules, or agreements that control them;
- Depending on the applicable regulations, quasi-judicial entities, unlike courts, may be a party to a matter and simultaneously provide a judgment on it.
Decisions
- A quasi-judicial body’s rulings typically involve factual evidence in order to arrive at legal conclusions that support the judgment. To establish the nature and seriousness of the permission or relief requested, or of the offence committed, they often rely on a predetermined set of rules or criteria. Decisions of a quasi-judicial body are frequently legally enforceable in accordance with a jurisdiction’s rules; they can be contested in court, which serves as the final arbiter of disputes.
List Of Quasi-Judicial Organisations
- A brief list of quasi-judicial organizations is shown below:
1. Canada:-
- International Trade Tribunal of Canada
- Transportation Agency of Canada
- Ontario’s adjustment committees
- Municipal Board of Ontario
- Board for Trademark Opposition
- Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire
2. India:-
- Some non-constitutional organizations with quasi-judicial functions include:
- Tribunal for National Company Law (NCLT)
- Tax Appellate Tribunal for Income (ITAT)
- Making assessments in accordance with the Income Tax Laws
- National Commission on Human Rights
- Commission for the National Consumer Dispute Resolution
- India’s Competition Commission
- Electricity Appellate Tribunal
- Tribunal for Railway Claims
- Appellate Tribunal for Intellectual Property
- Banking Advocate
- Green Tribunal National
- Commission for Central Information
- Indian Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI)
- Indian Reserve Bank (RBI)
- British Empire
- Commission for Parades
- Committee for Planning
- Principal Sheriffs in Scotland
- Authority for Financial Services
- The EPF & MP Act of 1952, Sections 7A and 14B [clarification needed]
3. The United States:-
- U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
- Commission for Commercial Fisheries Entry
- Planning commissions in California
- Coastal Commission of California
- Administration for Civil Aviation
- The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the US Patent and Trademark Office
- Board of Appeals for Local Zoning
- Board for National Labor Relations
- Commission for Equal Employment Opportunity
- Commission for Federal Elections
- Government Trade Commission
- Worldwide Trade Commission
4. Other:-
- Board of Pardons
- Inquiry Commission
- Committee on Human Rights
- Sports Court of Arbitration
- Commission on Elections of the Philippines
- Commission on National Privacy (Philippines)
- Office of European Patents
- Commission on National Labor Relations
- The Broadcasting Standards Authority of New Zealand
- Regulatory Authority for Communications in Botswana
- Nepal’s Chief District Officer
- Human and Peoples’ Rights Commission of Africa
- Dispute Resolution at the World Trade Organization
An Analysis Of The Immunity Granted To Judicial And Quasi-Judicial Authorities
The Judicial Officers’ Protection Act, 1850 was consolidated into the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Prior to independence, the British created an earlier legislation that only provided judges with protection in civil lawsuits. Contrarily, the following law granted immunity in both criminal and civil proceedings. In comparison to English common law, the jurisprudence regarding immunity in torts has been varied. The Indian courts have been wise enough to provide immunity only in situations where the judge was not legally liable.
No court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a judge for any act, thing, or word committed, done, or spoken by him while acting, or purporting to act, in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function, according to Section 3(1) of the Act.
1. Ajay Kumar Mukherji and Others v. Anwar Hussain (1965)
- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was found accountable in Anwar Hussain by the Supreme Court because he was behaving deliberately. He was told to pay damages because he had bad motives when he ordered the arrest of Anwar. This case demonstrates the Indian court system’s determination to limit judges’ legal immunity. That is, the judge may not receive any protection if his actions are not genuine.
2. Tulsi Ram and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1971)
- The lower court in Tulsi Ram found five people guilty. The court ordered the arrest of the remaining three perpetrators since two of them were later declared innocent in High Court. The two who were found not guilty were also included among the five, but the court magistrate mistakenly issued an arrest warrant for all five, leading to their detention by the police. Later, the two people who had been illegally detained brought a lawsuit against the court and the police. The court determined that because the state was following the court’s directives, it was not accountable. The judge’s carelessness, however, was upheld by the court, which also ruled that the judge was not entitled to immunity since she was only carrying out an executive, not a judicial, duty.
3. Suresh Chandra Gupta v. Sailajanand Pandey (1969)
- In this instance, the court once again acted dishonestly by ordering the plaintiff’s arrest. He also violated the law by issuing this directive, which was outside of his authority. The judge was found guilty of false imprisonment by the court as a result.
4. Union of India v. Veeraswamy (1991)
In this respect, Veeraswamy is among the contentious cases in the history of the Indian judicial system. The court rejected the primary query, which asked if an FIR could be brought against any judge. According to the court, a criminal prosecution can only be brought by the government with the Chief Justice of India’s approval because of his role as a “participatory functionary in the nomination of judges.” It’s also significant to remember that the court declared that CJI’s agreement is required, not just recommended. Additionally, to sanction prosecution, the government will require the CJI’s approval once again.
The Judges (Protection) Act of 1985 extends its protection to include the quasi-judicial bodies in India. This is supported by the Act’s Section 2(a), which states that anyone “who is empowered by law to give in any legal proceeding a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive” is included.
The provision makes it apparent that authorities like tribunals and boards that have been given legal or statutory authority may likewise be protected by this Act.
Critical Evaluation
In both English common law and Indian law, there are significant differences in the legal doctrine governing immunity. In several English cases when judges acted carelessly, they were awarded immunity. The Indian judicial system, on the other hand, does not grant protection to a careless judge operating with even good intentions. This, however, appears more plausible given that a ruling can restrict someone’s travel for any conceivable reason, as was the case in several of the examples cited above. Therefore, if a judge violates the laws of natural justice or behaves irresponsibly, he should be held accountable.
There is no hard-and-fast rule that can be adopted when it comes to the certainty of culpability of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities in India; it all relies on the specific facts of each case. However, it is assumed that under the following situations, judges will not be held liable:-
- where the judge violates the law or goes above his authority.
- if the judge behaves in a malicious manner.
- where the judge makes a mistake, in particular, no action in a criminal matter may be conducted without first consulting the Chief Justice of India.
Conclusion
Immunity from judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is crucial to prevent such authorities from being accused by those who have been the subject of court pronouncements. This concept, which has made a significant contribution to the court, may be assigned to Lord Coke. To avoid misuse of such a beneficial law, total immunity has not been provided. The laws have undergone more examination as time has gone on and have become more polished.
The Judges (Protection) Act of 1985 in India grants immunity to those in charge of carrying out judicial duties. Both judicial and quasi-judicial agencies are included. This is significant since several other agencies, like commissions, tribunals, boards, etc., have been given legal duties to carry out by various legislation.
The advantage of immunity is distributed in the Indian setting with great caution and care. Instead of receiving this broad protection, judges who behave improperly, recklessly, or outside the scope of their authority are held accountable for their decisions.
As a result, it can be concluded that providing judicial officials with immunity is a wise move that will enable them to render fair judgments without hesitation. However, it must also be kept in mind that such a decision must be taken with good faith and in line with the law.
Top 13 Interesting Facts About Quasi-Judicial
A quasi-judicial body is “an organ of Government other than a Court or Legislature, which affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rulemaking”. It is not mandatory that a Quasi-Judicial Body has to necessarily be an organization resembling a Court of Law.
The Election Commission of India is also a Quasi-Judicial Body but does not have its core functions as a Court of Law.
Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India are the Election Commission of India, National Green Tribunal, Central Information Commission (CIC), Lok Adalat, etc.
In the conventional judicial process, a large section of the populace for the fear of expenditure may hesitate from approaching the Courts, thus defeating the purpose of justice. Quasi-judicial bodies, on the other hand, have an overall low cost which encourages people to seek redressal for their grievances.
Tribunals and other such bodies do not follow any lengthy or complex procedure for submitting applications or evidence etc.
Quasi-judicial bodies while taking up specific matters, majorly help by sharing the massive workload of the Judiciary. Like the National Green Tribunal adjudicating the matters related to the environment and pollution.
Quasi-judicial bodies are accessible, free from technicalities, expeditious, and proceed more rapidly and efficiently as manned by experts.
Quasi-judicial bodies mostly remain understaffed and burdened with the ever-increasing number of cases, because of which they find it difficult to perform their functions smoothly.
The backbone of the problem lies in the fact that with half the manpower of the Judiciary, these bodies are expected to perform an almost equal amount of work.
Despite such odds, Quasi-judicial bodies are a great help to the nation and have substantially decreased the burden of the Judiciary. They also enable efficient governance of the country by addressing the core issues.
National Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial body that investigates cases of specifically Human Rights violations. It was established under the Human right act 1993. They can investigate human rights abuse and can recommend the steps to be taken.
They can be statutory, regulatory, or constitutional in nature. For example, the National Human Rights Commission is a statutory body, while Finance Commission is a constitutional body created under Article 280. Whereas SEBI is a regulatory body that performs judicial functions too.
These bodies need not only be headed by a judge rather experts too can be included having sectoral knowledge like Finance, Economics, Law, etc.
