Difference between Quasi Judicial and administrative functions
Difference Between Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Functions
1. Meaning
| Quasi-Judicial Functions | Administrative Functions |
|---|---|
| Actions involving adjudication of disputes or deciding rights and liabilities between parties, resembling judicial decisions but performed by administrative agencies or officials. | Actions involving implementation and enforcement of laws and policies, usually involving decision-making or regulation, without formal adjudication. |
2. Nature of Function
Quasi-Judicial:
Decides rights, duties, or liabilities of individuals or parties.
Requires application of law to facts.
Involves investigation, hearing, and determination.
Must follow principles of natural justice (fair hearing, no bias).
Examples: Licensing boards, tribunals, regulatory commissions when they adjudicate.
Administrative:
Involves executive or managerial functions.
Implementation of laws, policies, and regulations.
May involve discretion but not adjudication.
Natural justice may not always apply unless rights are affected.
Examples: Issuing licenses, routine public administration, policy formulation.
3. Requirement of Hearing
| Quasi-Judicial | Administrative |
|---|---|
| Hearing and opportunity to be heard are mandatory (audi alteram partem). | Hearing not mandatory unless prescribed or rights are affected. |
4. Legal Consequences
| Quasi-Judicial | Administrative |
|---|---|
| Decisions usually binding and enforceable like court judgments. | Decisions often preparatory or executive, may be subject to review or reversal. |
5. Control and Review
Quasi-Judicial: Subject to strict judicial review for bias, procedure, jurisdiction, and reasonableness.
Administrative: Subject to judicial review mainly for abuse of discretion, illegality, or procedural lapses.
6. Examples
| Quasi-Judicial Examples | Administrative Examples |
|---|---|
| Labor disputes tribunals | Granting building permits |
| Tax assessment authorities | Police administration |
| Licensing boards (when adjudicating) | Public service delivery |
| Election commissions | Implementation of welfare schemes |
Case Laws Illustrating the Difference
1. E.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Supreme Court of India
Context: This case involved legislative power and constitutional amendment but also discussed administrative discretion.
Significance: Differentiated the exercise of legislative power from administrative functions, highlighting that administrative functions are subject to law and not legislative in nature.
2. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) – Supreme Court of India
Context: Examined the powers of administrative tribunals and the nature of their decisions.
Significance: Confirmed that tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers must follow principles of natural justice and are subject to judicial review, unlike pure administrative actions.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – Supreme Court of India
Context: The selection board’s functions were challenged as biased.
Significance: Established that when a body exercises quasi-judicial functions, it must be impartial and comply with natural justice, unlike administrative bodies performing routine executive functions.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Supreme Court of India
Context: Passport was impounded without explanation.
Significance: The Court held that even administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must follow fair procedures, blurring lines but emphasizing fairness in both quasi-judicial and administrative functions.
5. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975) – Supreme Court of India
Context: Police officers’ disciplinary authority was challenged.
Significance: Held that disciplinary actions have quasi-judicial characteristics requiring adherence to natural justice, distinguishing from routine administrative actions.
6. Delhi Jal Board v. National Capital Region Planning Board (1993) – Supreme Court of India
Context: Dispute over water supply regulations.
Significance: Differentiated between administrative enforcement actions and quasi-judicial decisions on rights and liabilities.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Quasi-Judicial Functions | Administrative Functions |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Adjudicatory | Executive |
| Hearing | Mandatory | Generally not mandatory |
| Decision Bindingness | Binding, like judicial orders | Usually executive, can be reviewed |
| Legal Safeguards | Must observe natural justice | May not require natural justice, unless rights affected |
| Subject to Judicial Review | Yes, strictly | Yes, but limited to legality and reasonableness |
| Example | Licensing tribunals, disciplinary committees | Issuance of permits, policy implementation |
Conclusion
Quasi-judicial functions involve decision-making that affects rights and liabilities, requiring a fair hearing and judicial safeguards, resembling judicial proceedings but done by administrative bodies. Administrative functions relate to the implementation and management of government policies and may not require formal hearings unless they affect rights.
Both functions are vital but have distinct legal requirements and consequences, especially regarding procedural fairness and judicial scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
0 comments