Types of Quasi Judicial Bodies & Administrative Adjudicatory bodies in India : An overview
Types of Quasi-Judicial Bodies & Administrative Adjudicatory Bodies in India: An Overview
Introduction
In India’s administrative framework, many disputes relating to specialized fields are resolved by quasi-judicial bodies or administrative adjudicatory bodies instead of regular courts. These bodies possess powers to investigate, adjudicate, and decide disputes involving rights, duties, or privileges of individuals or entities.
They function between purely administrative authorities and courts, combining both executive and judicial characteristics — hence, the term quasi-judicial.
1. What are Quasi-Judicial Bodies?
Bodies or authorities that have the power to interpret laws, investigate facts, and make binding decisions affecting rights or interests.
They are not courts but exercise judicial-like functions.
Subject to principles of natural justice and judicial review.
Aim to provide specialized, speedy, and less formal resolution.
2. What are Administrative Adjudicatory Bodies?
Administrative agencies empowered by statute to resolve disputes involving administrative regulations.
Deal with technical, economic, or service-related issues.
Examples: tribunals, commissions, regulatory authorities.
Decisions often subject to appeal or judicial review.
Types of Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Adjudicatory Bodies in India
A. Tribunals
Specialized bodies dealing with disputes in specific domains.
Examples:
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – service matters of central government employees
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) – tax disputes
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
National Green Tribunal (NGT) – environmental disputes
B. Regulatory Authorities
Regulatory bodies with adjudicatory functions in sectors such as telecommunications, securities, electricity.
Examples:
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)
C. Commissions
Bodies like Human Rights Commissions, Election Commission, and Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions possess quasi-judicial powers.
D. Labor and Industrial Tribunals
Deal with disputes between employers and employees, wages, conditions of work.
Examples:
Industrial Tribunals
Labour Courts
E. Specialized Boards and Authorities
Examples include:
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Arbitration Tribunals under various statutes
Important Case Laws on Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Adjudicatory Bodies
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts:
The validity of tribunals and their exclusion of High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 was challenged.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that tribunals are constitutional, but judicial review by High Courts cannot be excluded.
Significance:
Affirmed constitutional validity of administrative tribunals.
Reinforced judicial review as a safeguard over quasi-judicial bodies.
2. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, AIR 2010 SC 2630
Facts:
Challenge to the decisions of tribunals and their procedural fairness.
Holding:
The Court held tribunals must adhere to principles of natural justice and provide fair hearings.
Significance:
Emphasized fairness and due process in tribunal functioning.
Clarified tribunals have quasi-judicial character and must act judicially.
3. Girish Nath Jha v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 3733
Facts:
Regarding the powers and scope of tribunals under administrative law.
Holding:
Tribunals have the power to adjudicate disputes within the scope of enabling statutes but cannot act beyond their jurisdiction.
Significance:
Stressed strict adherence to statutory powers by quasi-judicial bodies.
Prevents abuse of authority by administrative adjudicatory bodies.
4. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353
Facts:
The issue was about the jurisdiction of administrative officers and their quasi-judicial powers in land acquisition proceedings.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held such authorities must follow fair procedure and natural justice.
Significance:
Reinforced that administrative officers with quasi-judicial powers must act fairly.
Established that such bodies have judicial obligations despite being administrative.
5. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751
Facts:
Environmental disputes referred to the National Green Tribunal.
Holding:
The NGT, as a quasi-judicial body, was empowered to adjudicate complex environmental issues efficiently.
Significance:
Demonstrates the role of specialized tribunals in resolving technical disputes.
Shows how quasi-judicial bodies can enhance access to justice in specialized fields.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle | Impact on Quasi-Judicial Bodies |
|---|---|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | 1997 | Judicial review of tribunal decisions | Ensures tribunals remain under judicial supervision |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi | 2010 | Fairness and natural justice in tribunals | Upholds procedural fairness and hearing rights |
| Girish Nath Jha v. Union of India | 2004 | Jurisdictional limits of tribunals | Limits tribunals to statutory powers |
| Collector v. Katiji | 1987 | Natural justice in administrative quasi-judicial bodies | Requires fair procedure by administrative authorities |
| Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India | 2000 | Specialized tribunals in environmental law | Validates tribunals’ role in technical, environmental matters |
Conclusion
India’s quasi-judicial and administrative adjudicatory bodies are critical for effective governance and justice in specialized areas. They provide:
Expertise in technical and service matters
Speedy resolution of disputes outside regular courts
Procedural fairness consistent with natural justice
Judicial oversight through the courts ensuring legality and fairness
The judiciary has continuously developed doctrines to ensure these bodies function transparently, within their legal limits, and uphold citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments