JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS

This article is written by Himanshu Rawat of 1^st Semester of LLM of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

There are three organs of the government that perform various functions individually. The legislative organ creates or makes changes in the law; the executive ensures that the laws passed by the legislative are enforced accordingly and the function of the judiciary is to make sure that the laws executed are implemented correctly in every situation. But not always it may happen that the judicial functions are taken by the judiciary body only, the executive or the administrative authority can also play the judicial role. In some situations, these bodies can acquire the ‘quasi-judicial authority’. A judicial act is something that bounds the judiciary of any system to take decision with the proper proceedings of the court. And the quasi-judicial acts don’t bound anybody but give decisions without the proceedings of the court.[1][1]

Keywords: administrative expediency, our legal system, justice individual rights, administrative law.

INTRODUCTION

The complexity and nuances of administrative law are often crystallized when examining the categories of judicial and quasi-judicial acts. At the heart of this dichotomy is a careful balance between the rule of law and the need for administrative expediency in the delivery of public services. This article will explore these two facets of legal action, their characteristics, their differences, and their practical application in the modern context. Judicial acts form the backbone of our legal system. They uphold the rule of law, ensure justice, protect individual rights, and maintain societal order. However, these roles are multidimensional and encompass various functions.

The Functions and Importance of Judicial Acts

1. Interpretation and Application of Laws: One of the main functions of the judiciary is to interpret laws. Judicial acts involve the application of these interpretations to individual cases, ensuring their proper enforcement. Courts play a significant role in shaping the law, filling gaps left by legislators, and updating outdated legal principles.
2. Dispute Resolution: Courts are crucial arenas for the resolution of disputes. Through judicial acts, courts provide legally binding resolutions to conflicts, whether they are between individuals, between individuals and the government, or even between different government entities.
3. Guardian of the Constitution: Judicial acts serve to uphold constitutional principles. Courts have the power to review the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions, thus serving as the ultimate guardians of constitutional rights and principles.

List of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India are:

1. National Green Tribunal
2. Central Information Commission
3. National Human Rights Commission
4. Tribunal
5. SEBI

Note: A single body can be a statutory, regulatory, and quasi-judicial body[2][2]

The Role and Significance of Quasi-Judicial Acts

Quasi-judicial acts, while not conducted by courts, also have a critical role in the functioning of the legal system.

1. Administration of Justice: Quasi-judicial bodies, such as administrative tribunals, regulatory agencies, and certain commissions, help administer justice in specific areas where courts may not have the expertise or resources to do so efficiently. They can make decisions regarding specialized matters like environmental protection, human rights, and labor relations.
2. Enhancing Efficiency: By taking on tasks that would otherwise fall to the courts, quasi-judicial bodies free up judicial resources and allow for more expeditious decisions. This enhances the overall efficiency of the legal system.
3. Accessibility: Quasi-judicial bodies often have less formal procedures than courts, making them more accessible to the public. They provide a less intimidating avenue for individuals to seek redress for their grievances.

Interplay between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Acts

While they serve distinct functions and operate under different principles, judicial and quasi-judicial acts are not entirely separate. There is a significant interplay between these two categories of legal action.

1. Supervision and Control: Courts have the power to supervise and control quasi-judicial acts through judicial review. This ensures that quasi-judicial bodies do not overstep their authority and that their decisions conform to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
2. Legal Precedence: Courts’ interpretations of laws and legal principles in judicial acts often guide quasi-judicial bodies in their decision-making processes. In this way, the judiciary indirectly shapes quasi-judicial actions.
3. Appeals: In many jurisdictions, decisions made by quasi-judicial bodies can be appealed to the courts. This serves as an additional layer of oversight and protection for individuals’ rights.

Influence of Technological Advancements

The advent of technology has impacted both judicial and quasi-judicial acts. Online dispute resolution platforms, virtual courtrooms, and e-filing systems have revolutionized the way these acts are conducted.

In the context of judicial acts, technology has allowed for more efficient case management and reduced the physical constraints of courtrooms. However, it has also raised new challenges in terms of digital divide, data security, and privacy.

Quasi-judicial bodies have also incorporated technology into their operations. Online complaint mechanisms, digital databases, and virtual hearings have made these bodies more accessible and efficient. Yet, they also grapple with issues of technology access, cyber security, and maintaining the fairness and integrity of their processes in a digital environment.

The Implications of Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Acts

The implications of judicial and quasi-judicial acts extend far beyond the immediate consequences of a legal decision. They influence societal attitudes, set legal precedents, and shape the future trajectory of law and governance.

1. Social Impact: Judicial decisions often reflect societal values and, in turn, influence those values. Landmark court rulings on issues such as civil rights, environmental protection, and privacy have not only resolved specific disputes but also sparked public debates and led to significant societal change.
2. Legal Precedent: Judicial acts can establish legal precedents that guide future court decisions. These precedents can substantially impact the legal landscape and provide a degree of predictability in the law.
3. Policy Influence: Both judicial and quasi-judicial decisions can influence public policy. Courts’ interpretations of laws can guide policymakers in drafting new legislation, while decisions by quasi-judicial bodies can shape policy within their specific areas of jurisdiction.
4. Accountability and Governance: Judicial review of administrative acts, including quasi-judicial decisions, promotes accountability and good governance. It ensures that administrative bodies adhere to legal standards and respect individuals’ rights.

The Legal Principles Guiding Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Acts

Several legal principles guide the conduct of judicial and quasi-judicial acts, ensuring fairness and justice in their proceedings.

1. Natural Justice: Both judicial and quasi-judicial bodies are required to follow the principles of natural justice. These include the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua). These principles ensure that parties involved in a dispute are given a fair chance to present their case and that the decision-makers are impartial.
2. Rule of Law: The rule of law is a cornerstone of democratic societies and forms the basis for all judicial and quasi-judicial acts. It ensures that all actions of the state, including administrative actions, are conducted within the framework of the law.
3. Proportionality: Especially in the context of administrative law, the principle of proportionality guides quasi-judicial decisions. It requires that the measures taken by administrative bodies are proportionate to the aims they seek to achieve the Challenges of Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Acts.
4. While judicial and quasi-judicial acts are essential components of a functioning legal system, they are not without their challenges.
5. Accessibility: Although courts and quasi-judicial bodies are theoretically accessible to all, practical barriers such as cost, complexity of procedures, and lack of awareness can hinder access to justice.
6. Efficiency: Both judicial and quasi-judicial bodies face pressures to resolve disputes efficiently while ensuring fair and thorough proceedings. Balancing these two demands is a significant challenge.
7. Independence and Impartiality: Especially for quasi-judicial bodies, maintaining independence and impartiality can be difficult. These bodies often operate within larger administrative structures, and their decisions may be subject to political influence.
8. Navigating these challenges is crucial for ensuring that judicial and quasi-judicial acts effectively serve their intended functions.

Future of Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Acts

As society evolves, so too will the roles and functions of judicial and quasi-judicial acts. Greater emphasis on alternative dispute resolution methods, the continuing digitalization of the legal process, and emerging legal issues, such as those relating to artificial intelligence and data protection, will undoubtedly shape the future of these acts.

Final Thoughts

The understanding of judicial and quasi-judicial acts extends beyond academic discourse. It is integral to the functioning of our legal system and the maintenance of the rule of law. As we move forward, it is crucial that these institutions adapt and evolve to meet the changing needs of society while staying true to the principles of justice and fairness. While they are distinct in their functioning, the intersection of judicial and quasi-judicial acts serves as a testament to the dynamic and complex nature of our legal system.

The Judiciary and Judicial Acts

To fully comprehend judicial and quasi-judicial acts, it is essential to first understand the role of the judiciary. The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of government, alongside the executive and the legislative branches. The judiciary’s role is primarily to interpret and apply laws in specific cases, ensuring justice and the preservation of rights. Judicial acts are those that are inherently judicial in nature, undertaken by a court or a judge. They involve a decision-making process that requires the application of existing laws to particular facts and circumstances, leading to a legally binding decision that can be enforced by the state. Judicial acts essentially uphold the rule of law, safeguarding citizens’ rights and ensuring legal remedies for their grievances.

A judicial act typically possesses several fundamental characteristics. These include: –

1. Jurisdiction: The court or judge has the legal authority to hear and decide the case
2. Adversarial Procedure: Parties involved have the opportunity to present their arguments, and the process is typically marked by confrontation and opposing interests
3. Application of Law: The judge must apply existing laws and legal principles to the facts of the case, often resulting in a formal judgement or order
4. Finality: Judicial decisions are final, and although they may be appealed to a higher court, they have the force of law unless overturned

Quasi-Judicial Acts

In contrast, quasi-judicial acts are those exercised by administrative bodies or individuals who are not courts or judges. Yet, these acts bear a semblance to judicial acts due to their legal implications and decision-making processes. They are often necessary to cope with the vast array of administrative tasks that require some form of adjudication or determination but do not need full-blown judicial procedures.

The defining characteristics of quasi-judicial acts include

1. Legal Authority: While not a court or judge, the decision-making body or individual must have the legal authority to make a determination or order.
2. Evidence-Based Decision: Decisions are made based on evidence, facts, and circumstances presented, just as in a court of law.
3. Impartiality: The body or individual making the decision must act impartially, like a judge, even if they are part of an administrative or executive body.
4. Legal Consequences: The decision made has legal implications and may affect the rights, duties, or privileges of individuals involved.

Case Laws:

1. The case Jones vs. Saudi Arabia is about an action taken for damages brought by Jones and three other applicants, all the UK citizens who were falsely accused in the involvement in the bombings of Riyadh in the years 2001 and 2002. The four people were alleged that they were repeatedly tortured while they were in prison in Saudi Arabia and also, they suffered severe psychological and physical harm also. They wanted to seek damages from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of the Interior and also from Saudi officials who were responsible for torture and “assault”, also for “battery” and “trespass”, and unlawful imprisonment which were done by them. In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Saudi Arabia claimed immunity on its own behalf and also for its officials. The Court of Appeal agreed with the former but denied the latter, all the them who were parties appealed the decision. The House of Lords agreed with Saudi Arabia by upholding the state in court proceedings brought against a state and its officials in a different country for torturing them.[3][3]
2.  Anderson vs. Gorrie (1894)

The plaintiff had accused two persons of taking money on false pretenses. However, on the advice of his lawyer, he withdrew the case. Here the presiding judge of the case remarked that the plaintiff was extorting money from the defendants by involving them in the trial[4].[4]

Judgement of the Case: – In this case, no action will be taken against the judge as he was discharging his duties.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS [1]

Sr. No	Judicial	Quasi-Judicial Acts
	In terms of authority, judicial acts are undertaken by courts or judges	It acts are performed by administrative bodies or officials. The latter may not have the same degree of independence as a court or judge, and their decisions may be subject to more significant influence or control from the executive branch
	Judicial has similarities, especially concerning their decision-making processes but its fundamental is different than quasi-judicial.	Quasi-Judicial acts has the same decision-making process but it also has different fundamental.
	The procedure for judicial follow established procedures, including rules of evidence and procedure are flexible.	It is more flexible
	The level of procedural rigor in judicial acts is typically higher	The level of procedural rigor is lower
	The scope and finality of decisions differ. Judicial decisions are often broader in their implications and are final unless appealed in a higher court	In contrast, quasi-judicial decisions are more specific to the administrative domain and may be subject to review or appeal through administrative or judicial channels

Practical Application

Understanding the distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial acts is crucial in many areas. For instance, in administrative law, a comprehensive understanding is required to discern when an administrative act oversteps its bounds and ventures into the judicial domain. Moreover, the difference informs legal recourse and the rights of parties involved. For instance, a person aggrieved by a quasi-judicial decision may have recourse to an administrative appeal or judicial review, depending on the law.

Conclusion

In sum, judicial and quasi-judicial acts play crucial roles in a balanced legal system, bridging the divide between administrative efficiency and the rule of law. These distinct yet interconnected aspects reflect the dynamic nature of our legal systems, ensuring justice is served while maintaining the functionality of public administration. As the legal landscape evolves, understanding these concepts remains pivotal, ensuring the preservation of fundamental rights and democratic values in society.

Judicial and quasi-judicial acts represent two sides of the same coin in the pursuit of justice and the maintenance of the rule of law. While they differ in their procedures, level of formality, and areas of operation, they share a common objective: to ensure fairness, uphold rights, and resolve disputes. In a world of increasing complexity and rapid change, these acts play a vital role in maintaining social order and promoting democratic governance. By striking a balance between administrative efficiency and judicial rigor, they ensure that the wheels of justice keep turning smoothly and effectively.

While judicial and quasi-judicial acts share some similarities in their decision-making processes and legal implications, their differences are substantial and significant. Comprehending these differences is vital to understanding the scope, implications, and potential challenges of decisions made in these contexts.

---

[1] https://lexpeeps.in/judicial-and-quasi-judicial-acts

1. [2] https://towncentreimmigration.com/does-hairspray/santiago-ponzinibbio-ranking

[3] https://blog.ipleaders.in/justification-torts-judicial-quasi-judicial-acts/

[4] https://legalpaathshala.com/judicial-and-quasi-judicial-acts/