Judicial review of quasi-judicial action
🔍 I. What is Quasi-Judicial Action?
A quasi-judicial action is a decision made by an administrative or statutory authority that has legal consequences, involves the determination of rights or liabilities, and requires observance of principles of natural justice, but does not belong to the traditional judiciary.
Key Characteristics of Quasi-Judicial Action:
Authority acts like a judge, but is not a court.
Decision affects legal rights of individuals.
Legal duty to act fairly and follow principles of natural justice.
Examples: decisions by tribunals, disciplinary authorities, regulatory commissions, licensing bodies, etc.
🧑⚖️ II. Judicial Review of Quasi-Judicial Action
Courts do not sit in appeal over quasi-judicial decisions but review them to ensure:
The authority has acted within jurisdiction.
There is no breach of natural justice.
The decision is not arbitrary or mala fide.
The decision is based on relevant evidence and not irrational.
Procedural fairness has been maintained.
✅ Judicial Review focuses on process, not the merits of the decision.
⚖️ III. Important Case Laws on Judicial Review of Quasi-Judicial Action
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969 AIR 150)
Facts:
A selection committee for the Indian Forest Service included a member who was also a candidate. The selection was challenged for violation of natural justice.
Issue:
Whether the action of the selection committee was administrative or quasi-judicial, and whether it could be judicially reviewed.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that though the process was administrative in form, it had quasi-judicial features because it involved selection based on merit and rights of individuals. The presence of bias violated natural justice.
Principle:
Even administrative actions with quasi-judicial elements are subject to judicial review if natural justice is violated.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964 AC 40) – UK Case (Followed in India)
Facts:
A police officer was dismissed without being given an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The House of Lords held the dismissal invalid for breach of natural justice. The employer’s action, though administrative, was quasi-judicial in nature as it affected civil rights.
Indian Context:
This case laid the foundation for Indian courts to recognize that procedural fairness is essential even in quasi-judicial actions. Frequently cited in Indian judgments.
Principle:
Right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is essential in quasi-judicial decisions.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing her a hearing.
Issue:
Whether the action under the Passport Act, which had discretionary elements, could be reviewed judicially.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that any quasi-judicial or administrative decision affecting life or liberty must comply with Article 14 and Article 21. Absence of a hearing violated natural justice.
Principle:
Quasi-judicial actions affecting fundamental rights are fully subject to judicial review. Due process and fairness are mandatory.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985 AIR 1416)
Facts:
Several government employees were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b), citing "public interest".
Issue:
Whether dismissal without inquiry was judicially reviewable.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even if inquiry is dispensed with, courts can review whether the satisfaction was genuine, not arbitrary, and not mala fide.
Principle:
Judicial review is available to examine whether quasi-judicial satisfaction (e.g., "in public interest") is based on relevant materials and is not abused.
5. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993 AIR 412)
Facts:
An employee was dismissed without notice or hearing for remaining absent from work.
Issue:
Whether such dismissal, under the standing orders of the company, could be allowed without following natural justice.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even when rules provide for automatic termination, the principles of natural justice must be followed before affecting someone’s livelihood.
Principle:
Every quasi-judicial disciplinary action must ensure procedural fairness, regardless of what service rules say.
📋 IV. Summary Table
| Case Name | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Natural justice applies to administrative actions with quasi-judicial elements |
| Ridge v. Baldwin (UK) | Right to be heard is essential in quasi-judicial dismissal |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Quasi-judicial discretion must comply with Articles 14 & 21 |
| Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel | Public interest-based actions are reviewable for arbitrariness |
| D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries | Natural justice must be observed even in automatic/summary termination |
📌 V. Conclusion
Quasi-judicial actions, though not taken by regular courts, affect rights and duties of individuals. Hence, courts ensure through judicial review that such actions:
Stay within legal limits
Are not arbitrary or discriminatory
Follow natural justice
Are based on evidence and reason
Courts don’t interfere with the merits, but ensure the fairness and legality of the decision-making process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments