A critical analysis of the difference between quasi-judicial and judicial action
Critical Analysis: Difference Between Quasi-Judicial and Judicial Action
Introduction
Administrative law distinguishes between judicial and quasi-judicial actions to define the nature of decision-making by various authorities. While both involve adjudication or decision-making, their scope, procedure, and legal standing differ significantly.
Definition of Terms
Judicial Action:
Action taken by courts or tribunals which exercise judicial power vested by the Constitution or statute. It involves deciding disputes between parties by applying law and delivering binding judgments.
Quasi-Judicial Action:
Actions taken by administrative or executive authorities that have some characteristics of judicial decisions, such as deciding rights or liabilities of persons, but are not courts. These authorities act within delegated powers.
Key Differences Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Actions
| Aspect | Judicial Action | Quasi-Judicial Action |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Courts or constitutional tribunals | Administrative or executive agencies |
| Source of Power | Constitution or statute | Statutory delegation by legislature or executive |
| Nature of Function | Purely judicial, resolving disputes | Hybrid: partly judicial, partly administrative |
| Scope | Decides civil/criminal disputes | Decides rights or liabilities on specific matters |
| Procedure | Formal, governed by procedural laws, evidence, rules | Less formal but must follow principles of natural justice |
| Binding Nature | Decisions are final and binding | Decisions are binding but can be reviewed by courts |
| Appeal/Review | Appeals lie to higher courts | Subject to judicial review for legality, fairness, reasonableness |
| Example | Sessions Court, High Court | Labour tribunals, income tax authorities, licensing boards |
Critical Analysis
Judicial actions form the backbone of the justice delivery system. They strictly follow legal procedures, evidence rules, and provide a full adjudicatory process with binding precedents.
Quasi-judicial actions serve as a relief valve to reduce the burden on courts by allowing administrative agencies to resolve specialized disputes quickly and flexibly.
However, quasi-judicial bodies must observe natural justice (fair hearing, impartiality), ensuring no arbitrariness in their decisions.
Courts maintain the ultimate control by reviewing quasi-judicial decisions for jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, or abuse of power.
While judicial actions enjoy greater procedural safeguards, quasi-judicial bodies have flexibility but must strike a balance between efficiency and fairness.
Case Laws Illustrating Differences and Principles
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: Alleged bias and denial of fair hearing by a quasi-judicial body.
Held: Quasi-judicial bodies must follow principles of natural justice; decisions can be invalidated for bias.
Significance: Clarified that quasi-judicial actions require fairness akin to courts but are not courts.
2. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Facts: Challenge to quasi-judicial decision regarding lease.
Held: Quasi-judicial actions have to be fair, but the procedure can be less formal than courts.
Significance: Emphasized procedural flexibility but insistence on fairness in quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Facts: Question of whether a tribunal was acting judicially or administratively.
Held: Actions were quasi-judicial as the tribunal adjudicated rights with some procedural formalities but was not a court.
Significance: Highlighted functional test distinguishing judicial and quasi-judicial actions.
4. Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa (1978)
Facts: Scope of rule-making (quasi-legislative) vs. adjudicatory powers.
Held: Administrative authorities can exercise quasi-judicial powers only within limits defined by law.
Significance: Demarcated quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, and judicial powers.
5. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982)
Facts: Appointment procedures of judges and quasi-judicial nature of tribunals.
Held: Courts have primacy in judicial actions; tribunals must adhere to basic fairness.
Significance: Judicial supremacy reaffirmed over quasi-judicial bodies.
Summary of Important Points
| Factor | Judicial Action | Quasi-Judicial Action |
|---|---|---|
| Decision maker | Court or constitutional tribunal | Administrative authority or tribunal |
| Procedures | Formal, strict | Flexible, less formal |
| Power scope | Full judicial power | Limited, delegated by statute |
| Nature of disputes | Civil, criminal disputes | Specific administrative disputes |
| Natural justice | Always applies | Must apply, but flexible |
| Finality | Final and binding | Subject to judicial review |
Conclusion
Judicial actions are formal, constitutionally protected exercises of judicial power by courts with stringent procedural safeguards.
Quasi-judicial actions are administrative decisions with judicial characteristics but designed for efficiency in specific fields.
Both must uphold fairness and legality, but the scope, formality, and reviewability differ.
Judicial review acts as a check ensuring quasi-judicial authorities do not exceed their mandate or violate natural justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments