Their powers are usually limited to a very specific area of expertise and authority, such as land use and zoning, financial markets, employment law, public standards, and/or a specific set of regulations of an agency. The decisions of such a body are usually made after a quasi-judicial proceeding which may resemble a court.
Differences from Judicial Bodies:
There are a few differences between judicial and quasi-judicial bodies which are as follows:
- Judicial decisions are limited by precedent in common law, while quasi-judicial decisions are not really bound.
- Without any precedent in common law, judicial decisions might make new law, while quasi-judicial decisions should be based on conclusions of existing law.
- Quasi-judicial bodies need not consistently follow firm judicial rules of evidence and procedure.
- Quasi-judicial bodies should hold formal hearings provided if mandated to do so under their governing laws, regulations, or agreements.
- Quasi-judicial bodies, unlike courts, might be a party in a matter and issue a decision simultaneously, depending on the specific governing rules.
Some examples of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India are as follows:
- Election Commission of India.
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal.
- Telecom Dispute Settlement and Tribunal.
Reasons for Emergence of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India:
- As the State grew in size and functions, the burden on its functions, especially those of the judicial system increased manifold. Therefore, the need for an alternative judicial system arose.
- The cost factor also played an important role because ordinary judicial procedures can turn out to be a costly affair if stretched over a long period of time.
- The complexity of a plethora of laws called for more technical minds in specific fields.
Advantages of Quasi-Judicial Bodies:
- Low Cost: In the conventional judicial process, a large section of the populace for the fear of expenditure, may hesitate from approaching the Courts, thus defeating the purpose of justice. Tribunals on the other hand, have an overall low cost which encourages people to seek redressal for their grievances.
- Simplicity: Tribunals and other such bodies do not follow any lengthy or complex procedure for submitting application or evidence etc.
- Expert Knowledge: A tribunal comprises of experts, who can easily understand the technicalities of a case, the necessary actions involved and their consequences.
- Reduction of Workload: Tribunals while taking up specific matters, majorly help by sharing the massive workload of the Judiciary. In a country which has 2.81 crore pending cases, it is important to take steps to decrease the burden of the Judiciary.
Disadvantages of Quasi-Judicial Bodies:
- The unfair imbalance between represented and unrepresented parties as the richer parties have a better chance at representation when compared to the ones with limited resources at their disposal.
- While lower costs of Tribunals encourage people to fight for justice, they also invite a lot of ill-founded claims.
- Many a times the decision given by a Tribunal is challenged in a High Court by the losing party. This inevitably puts the burden on the Judiciary, which defies the purpose of Tribunals.