What are Quasi-Judicial Bodies? Characteristics of Quasi-Judicial Bodies

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.

For example, the Election Commission of India is also a Quasi-Judicial Body but does not have its core functions as a Court of Law. Some examples of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India are Election Commission of India, National Green Tribunal, Central Information Commission (CIC), Lok Adalat etc. Role of quasi-judicial bodies in the governance 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 application 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 environment and pollution. Quasi-judicial bodies are accessible, free from technicalities, expeditious and proceed more rapidly and efficiently as manned by experts.

Taking the example of the Election Commission of India - its quasi-judicial powers and functions sufficiently indicate that it has adjudicatory powers quite akin to the court system. Quasi-judicial functions of the Election Commission are:

1. The Commission has the power to disqualify a candidate who has failed to lodge an account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner prescribed by law.
2. The Commission has also the power for removing or reducing the period of such disqualification as also other disqualifications under the law.
3. The Commission acts as a court for settling disputes related to granting of recognition to political parties and allotment of election symbols to them. 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.

Quasi-judicial bodies, also known as quasi-judicial agencies or quasi-judicial tribunals, are entities or administrative bodies that possess certain powers and functions similar to those of a court of law, but they are not actual courts. These bodies are typically established by governments to perform specialized functions such as dispute resolution, rulemaking, or the enforcement of specific laws or regulations. Quasi-judicial bodies are an important part of the administrative and legal systems in many countries and serve various purposes. Here are some key characteristics and examples:

1. Specialized Functions: Quasi-judicial bodies are often established to handle specific types of cases or disputes, such as labor disputes, environmental regulations, tax appeals, or licensing issues.
2. Decision-Making Authority: These bodies have the authority to make decisions, issue rulings, and enforce compliance with the law or regulations within their area of jurisdiction.
3. Procedures: Quasi-judicial bodies typically follow procedures that resemble those of a court, including hearings, the presentation of evidence, examination of witnesses, and the issuance of written decisions.
4. Independence: While they are part of the government structure, quasi-judicial bodies are designed to be independent from direct political influence to ensure impartiality in their decision-making.
5. Limited Jurisdiction: Quasi-judicial bodies have a limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only make decisions within the scope of the laws or regulations that govern their operations.
6. Appeal Process: Decisions made by quasi-judicial bodies may be subject to review by higher courts, depending on the legal framework of the country.

Examples of Quasi-Judicial Bodies:

1. Labor Relations Boards: These bodies handle labor disputes, collective bargaining, and unfair labor practices. For example, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the United States.
2. Environmental Agencies: Agencies responsible for enforcing environmental regulations and issuing permits, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States.
3. Tax Tribunals: These bodies adjudicate tax-related disputes, appeals, and assessments. Examples include tax appellate tribunals or tax courts.
4. Securities and Exchange Commissions: These agencies oversee securities markets and handle regulatory matters, including enforcement actions against violations of securities laws.
5. Licensing Boards: Boards that grant or revoke licenses for various professions, such as medical licensing boards, bar associations for lawyers, or real estate licensing boards.
6. Human Rights Commissions: These commissions address complaints related to discrimination and human rights violations and may conduct investigations and issue rulings.
7. Educational Boards and Tribunals: Educational bodies that handle academic disputes, disciplinary matters, and accreditation issues in educational institutions.
8. Competition Commissions: Agencies responsible for enforcing competition and antitrust laws, ensuring fair competition in markets, and reviewing mergers and acquisitions.

Quasi-judicial bodies serve to expedite legal processes, provide specialized expertise, and relieve the burden on traditional courts. Their decisions are typically binding and have legal consequences. However, their authority is subject to checks and balances, including judicial review by higher courts to ensure the protection of individuals' rights and due process.