- Examples of Quasi judicial bodies in India.
- What Powers and Functions Do Quasi-Judicial Authorities Have in India?
- Does the CBI Have Quasi-Judicial Authority in India?
- What Is the Difference Between Judicial and Quasi Judicial Authority?
- Which Is Better? Judicial or Quasi Judicial Authority?
- What Are the Benefits of Judicial Authority?
- What Are the Benefits of Quasi Judicial Authority?
- Quasi Judicial Authority power of Review
- What Are the Benefits of the Power of Review?
What Is the meaning of Quasi-Judicial Authority?
When most people think of courts, they think of judicial authority—their power to review and rule on the law. But there’s a second type of authority that’s just as important: Quasi Judicial Authority. This is the power to review and rule on administrative decisions.
Quasi-judicial authority is vested in administrative agencies, and it’s used to ensure that these agencies are following the law. For example, if an agency decides to deny a request for a permit, it can be challenged in court. This is what we call judicial review.
Quasi-judicial authority is an important tool for ensuring that agencies are acting within the bounds of the law. And it’s something that you should know about if you’re planning on challenging an agency decision.
Examples of Quasi judicial bodies in India.
The term “quasi-judicial” is not defined in the Indian Constitution but is generally understood to mean a body or authority that is empowered to adjudicate or determine rights and liabilities, and to impose penalties or sanctions, in relation to a matter before it, in accordance with the procedural rules of natural justice.
In India, quasi-judicial authorities are typically statutory bodies or authorities that are empowered by an Act of Parliament to adjudicate or determine rights and liabilities, and to impose penalties or sanctions, in relation to a matter before them.
Some of the more well-known quasi-judicial bodies in India include the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Competition Commission of India (CCI), the Central Information Commission (CIC), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
The role of quasi-judicial bodies is to adjudicate disputes and to pronounce judgment in accordance with the law. They are not empowered to make laws.
Quasi-judicial bodies and courts play an important role in the Indian legal system and are essential for the protection of the rights of the people.
What Powers and Functions Do Quasi-Judicial Authorities Have in India?
Let’s take a closer look at the powers and functions of quasi-judicial authorities in India.
As the name suggests, quasi-judicial authorities are a hybrid between judicial and administrative authorities. They are vested with both the power to adjudicate disputes and the power to administer justice.
This essentially means that quasi-judicial authorities can hear disputes and pass judgments, just like a court of law. However, they can also exercise powers of administration, such as issuing directives or instructions, or taking action against errant officials.
Quasi-judicial authorities are also empowered to regulate their own procedures, which gives them a high degree of flexibility in handling cases. This is particularly useful in cases that are particularly complex or require a quick resolution.
Does the CBI Have Quasi-Judicial Authority in India?
You might be wondering, does the CBI have quasi judicial authority in India? The answer is… it’s complicated.
The CBI was originally set up as a purely investigative agency, but over time its authority has been expanded to include judicial functions. However, not everyone agrees that the CBI has the right to perform these judicial functions, and there have been several court cases that have challenged its authority.
So what’s the verdict? Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that the CBI does have quasi judicial authority in certain cases. But this is still a bit of a gray area, and there are a lot of people who don’t think the CBI should be involved in judicial proceedings at all.
What Is the Difference Between Judicial and Quasi Judicial Authority?
When it comes to the legal system, there is a big difference between judicial and quasi-judicial authority.
Judicial authority is vested in the courts, while quasi-judicial authority is vested in other government officials. For example, a city council has quasi-judicial authority to decide zoning issues.
The key difference between the two is that judicial authority is based on the rule of law, while quasi-judicial authority is based on the rule of reason. What this means is that judicial authority applies the law equally to everyone, while quasi-judicial authority allows for a certain amount of discretion on the part of the official making the decision.
So, which type of authority is better? That’s a tough question, and there are pros and cons to both. But ultimately, it comes down to what works best in each individual situation.
Which Is Better? Judicial or Quasi Judicial Authority?
You might be wondering which is better—judicial or quasi-judicial authority?
Well, judicial authority is the term used for an organization or individual that has the power to interpret and apply the law. This is the most common form of authority, and it’s vested in judges who preside over courts.
Quasi-judicial authority, on the other hand, is a power that’s delegated by a judicial authority to perform specific tasks. This might include things like hearing evidence, ruling on disputes, and issuing binding decisions.
So which is better? It really depends on the situation. Judicial authority is a bit more formal, while quasi-judicial authority is more informal. But ultimately, it’s up to the person or organization in question to decide which type of authority they want to use.
When it comes to making decisions, authorities can be broken down into two categories: judicial and quasi-judicial. But what’s the difference between the two? Let’s take a closer look.
Judicial authority is exercised by a court or judges. They’re the ones who interpret the law and make decisions based on their interpretation. Quasi-judicial authority, on the other hand, is exercised by someone who isn’t a judge. They still interpret the law, but they also have the power to make decisions that are binding on the parties involved in the dispute.
So why is this important? It’s important because quasi-judicial authorities can make decisions much more quickly than a court can, and this can be really helpful in resolving disputes. They’re also cheaper to use, which is another plus.
What Are the Benefits of Judicial Authority?
When it comes to judicial authority, there are a few key benefits that set it apart from quasi-judicial authority
1. Judicial authority is exercised by a court, which is an impartial and independent body. This means that the court will review evidence and arguments from both sides before making a decision.
2. Quasi-judicial authority, on the other hand, is exercised by an administrative body that is not independent. This can lead to conflicts of interest, and decisions may be made based on political or personal agendas rather than the facts of the case.
3. Another benefit of judicial authority is that it provides more certainty. When a court makes a ruling, it’s binding on all parties involved. This helps to avoid costly and time-consuming legal disputes.
So if you’re looking for a system that provides impartiality and certainty, judicial authority is the way to go.
What Are the Benefits of Quasi Judicial Authority?
You might be wondering what the benefits are of having Quasi Judicial Authority.
Here are some of the key benefits:
1. Quasi Judicial Authority provides an efficient and expeditious way to resolve disputes.
2. It helps to ensure that parties are given a fair hearing and that decisions are made in a timely manner.
3. It is an important tool for ensuring compliance with regulatory schemes.
4. It provides a mechanism for reviewing decisions made by administrative agencies.
5. It helps to ensure that the rules governing administrative agencies are followed.
There are key differences between judicial and quasi-judicial authority, the most important of which is the level of discretion each has. Judicial authority is bound by the law, while quasi-judicial authority has a little more leeway in making decisions.
Quasi-judicial authorities are often used in administrative law, where there is a need for a decision to be made quickly. Judicial authorities are more common in criminal and constitutional law.
Both judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are important in our legal system, and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. It’s important to understand the difference between the two so you can make the best decision for your situation.
Quasi Judicial Authority power of Review
in the case of Dr. (Smt. ) Kunkesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & Others, , the Supreme Court categorically held that:-
It is now well established that a quasi–judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction.
What Are the Benefits of the Power of Review?
So what are the benefits of the power of review? Well, for one, it helps ensure that decisions made by government bodies are fair and reasonable. It also allows for a greater level of scrutiny, so that errors or mistakes can be corrected.
But most importantly, it helps to ensure that the public is being heard. The power of review makes sure that the voices of ordinary citizens are taken into account, and that their concerns are addressed. This is something that’s essential in any democracy.
So if you’re ever feeling like your voice isn’t being heard, or like you’re not being treated fairly, don’t hesitate to exercise your right to seek review. It’s an important tool for ensuring that our government is held accountable to its citizens.
How Can the Power of Review Be Used?
The power of review is a powerful tool that can be used in a number of ways. It can be used to overturn decisions made by government bodies, to review the decisions of private organizations, or to review the decisions of tribunals.
This power can be used to great effect when there is a perception that an individual or organization has not acted fairly or in accordance with the law. It’s a way for those who have been adversely affected by a decision to have it reviewed by an impartial body.
The power of review is also an important safeguard against administrative injustice. It ensures that decisions made by government bodies or private organizations are fair and in accordance with the law.
What Are the Implications of Quasi Judicial Authority?
When it comes to quasi judicial authority, what this really boils down to is the power to review. In other words, this authority enables an administrative body to review the decisions made by another administrative body.
This is a big deal, because it means that there’s a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to the decisions made by government officials. And this is something that’s been enshrined in our Constitution, which means that it’s a fundamental principle of our democracy.
So what are the implications of quasi judicial authority? Well, for one thing, it means that we can hold our government officials accountable for their decisions. And for another, it means that we have a system in place that ensures that these decisions are made in a fair and transparent way.