Judicial review of quasi-judicial action
I. Introduction
In Administrative Law, quasi-judicial actions are decisions made by administrative or statutory authorities that affect the rights of individuals and require application of mind, evidence, and adherence to principles of natural justice. These are not purely judicial, but more than administrative.
When such authorities exceed their powers, violate natural justice, or act illegally or arbitrarily, courts can intervene through judicial review.
II. Meaning of Quasi-Judicial Action
A quasi-judicial action is:
A decision made by a non-judicial authority, which has a statutory duty to decide disputes or affect rights.
The authority must act fairly, follow natural justice, and record reasoned decisions.
Example: disciplinary actions by regulatory bodies, decisions by tribunals, licensing authorities, etc.
III. Grounds for Judicial Review of Quasi-Judicial Actions
Violation of Natural Justice
Lack of Jurisdiction
Error of Law
Arbitrariness / Mala Fides
Non-application of Mind
Unreasoned Decisions
IV. Landmark Case Laws on Judicial Review of Quasi-Judicial Action
Here are five detailed Supreme Court cases where quasi-judicial actions were judicially reviewed:
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150
Facts:
Selection for Indian Forest Service was challenged.
A member of the selection board was also a candidate, creating bias.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even though the selection board was a quasi-judicial authority, natural justice must be followed.
Bias violates the principle of fair hearing.
Significance:
Blended distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Held that fairness is required in all decision-making processes.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964 AC 40) – English Case Followed in India
Facts:
A police officer was dismissed without being given a chance to defend.
Though a British case, it heavily influenced Indian jurisprudence.
Held:
The dismissal was declared void due to violation of natural justice.
Even administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must give the person a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Significance:
Introduced the principle that duty to act fairly applies to quasi-judicial authorities.
Laid foundation for audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without being given reasons or an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The Court held that reasoned and fair procedure is required even in executive or quasi-judicial actions.
Article 21 includes procedural fairness.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review and natural justice.
Courts can review quasi-judicial actions affecting life and liberty.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
Facts:
Civil servants were dismissed under Article 311(2)(b) without inquiry due to alleged national security threat.
Held:
The Court held that in exceptional cases, inquiry may be dispensed with, but the action must be justified and not arbitrary.
Natural justice can be restricted, but only in genuine cases.
Significance:
Clarified that quasi-judicial powers can be reviewed if misused or claimed falsely to avoid fair procedure.
5. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 SCC 33
Facts:
Tax authorities issued a reassessment notice without granting a personal hearing.
Held:
The Court held that quasi-judicial tax assessments must follow natural justice.
Even if statutes don’t mandate personal hearing, fairness demands it.
Significance:
Reinforced that quasi-judicial bodies cannot act mechanically or unreasonably.
Established duty of pre-decisional hearing in tax matters.
V. Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Key Issue | Held | Legal Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Kraipak | Bias in selection process | Selection void | Natural justice applies to quasi-judicial bodies |
| Ridge v. Baldwin | Dismissal without hearing | Void dismissal | Audi alteram partem is universal |
| Maneka Gandhi | Passport impounded | Must follow fair process | Quasi-judicial actions affecting liberty must be fair |
| Tulsiram Patel | Dismissal without inquiry | Must be justified | Restriction of natural justice must be justified |
| Siemens Ltd. | Tax reassessment without hearing | Violation of fairness | Quasi-judicial functions require opportunity to be heard |
VI. Conclusion
Judicial review of quasi-judicial actions is essential to ensure that public authorities do not abuse their discretion. While quasi-judicial bodies are not full courts, they must act fairly, follow natural justice, and provide reasoned decisions.
The Indian judiciary has consistently held that no authority can act arbitrarily, and fairness is a constitutional requirement, whether in administrative or quasi-judicial decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments