By:- Advocate Pooja Deshmukh
B.Com, M.Com, L.L.B.
Advocate @ Bombay High Court and lower courts
JUDICIAL AND QUASI JUDICIAL COURTS
(There are different Courts of law which are categorized into 2 sets judicial and quasi-judicial. Ordinary Courts of law such as all District Courts, which includes all Magistrate Courts, Sessions Court, Civil Courts, Family Courts….)
There are different Courts of law which are categorized into 2 sets judicial and quasi-judicial. Ordinary Courts of law such as Supreme Court, High Courts, District Courts which includes all Magistrate Courts, Sessions Court, Civil Courts, Family Courts, in common parlance are categorized as Judicial Courts, as they exercise their exclusive judicial functions and administer justice to the general public or litigants. Whereas Quasi-Judicial Courts are not exactly Courts, but are authorities appointed to exercise a few judicial functions as attributed to them. Hence, Quasi- Judicial courts are not like Ordinary Courts but are almost termed as Courts as they are assigned with not all the judicial functions unlike a Court, but a few. Also considering the purpose for writing on this topic is to answer the question asked to us based on our previous article about the dress code for the advocates before the Quasi-Judicial authorities. Referring to the question, the Advocates should follow their professional ethics while representing the litigants even before the Quasi- Judicial Authorities. Whereas, the litigants can represent themselves before such authorities in person too.
Further to spot evident difference between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial courts would be that the Judicial Courts i.e. the Ordinary Courts administer Ordinary law or we can say Laws of the Land, which is laid down by the Legislature, whereas the Quasi-Judicial Courts administer Administrative Law. Also, the Quasi-Judicial Courts are not subject to the jurisdiction as that of the Ordinary Courts but have a different set of jurisdictions depending upon the assigned functions of the authority.
SPOTTING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL COURTS IN SHORT
| JUDICIAL COURTS | QUASI-JUDICIAL COURTS |
| They are Ordinary Courts of law | They are not actual Courts, but resemble the powers of the Court of Law. |
| Governed by the laws of the land | Governed by the Administrative Law |
| Decisions are bound by precedents | Decisions are not bound by precedents |
| Judicial decisions may create new laws. | Quasi-Judicial decisions are based on exisiting laws |
| Cannot be a Judge and issue a decision in its own case. | May be a party to a matter and issue its decision thereon |
| Adherence to the judicial rules like following the procedure and recording of evidence is necessary. | Need not adhere to the judicial rules for procedure and recording of evidence. |
| Holding of formal hearing required as per the procedure. | Holding of formal hearing not required unless mandated by the governing law |
| Their Powers are not limited to any particular area as such, it has wide scope to try all the matters and appeals too which are preferred challenging the decisions of the Quasi-Judicial Courts. | Their Powers are limited to specific areas of the authorities and the expertise to matters like land zoning, financial markets, employment law etc. |
| The litigants cannot represent themselves in person before the court, it requires an Advocate to represent the case. | The litigant here can appear in person representing its own case before the authority. |
| Time Consuming as there are a large number of cases pending before the courts. | Less time consuming than that of ordinary courts. The decision can also be issued within a day depending upon the case. |
If the Judicial Courts were already an establishment for the litigating individuals then why was there a need of Quasi-Judicial Courts?
HISTORY BEHIND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF QUASI-JUDICIAL COURTS
Post-Independence, India adopted to become a welfare state from a Laissez-faire, which eventually lead to increase in the state activities, and there was increase in state activities and hence a need to regulate these activities arose. The transition from Laissez-faire to a social welfare state meant turning the State into a more positive place to live in, which focused more on meeting needs of the citizens, reduction in disparities of wealth and income and achieving social and economic justice. Increase in day to day activities of the state lead to increase in rising number of cases and pending litigations which resulted into increased burden on the overall judiciary. Hence, to serve the citizens and to meet their needs and standing by the definition of welfare state, which means for the public welfare, need had arisen to establish authorities to look into the public welfare. The philosophy of a welfare state has been expressly ingrained in the Constitution of India, which aims at establishing a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic India, so as to secure to all its citizens Social, Economic and Political Justice.
The Constitution of India, in its 42nd Amendment act, 1976, section 4 provides for establishment of Administrative tribunals for adjudication of trials by administrative authorities for disputes and complaints. The Constitution of India, Part XIV-A under the head Tribunals, Article 323A provides for adjudication of complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed by public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government, whereas Article 324B provides for adjudication of complaints and offences arising in matters of levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax; foreign exchange, import, export across customs frontiers; industrial and labour disputes; land reforms by way of acquisition by States; ceiling on urban property; elections to either House of Parliament or the House or either of the House of the Legislature of a State excluding the matters referred to in Article 329 and Article 329A; production, procurement, supply and distribution of foodstuffs or any other goods; rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the rights, title and interest of landlords and tenants.
APPEALS
All the decisions made by any Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Court in any particular case, can be appealed further to the superior court to which the decision-making court was subordinate. In case of matters heard by the Judicial Courts, the hierarchy of appellate court like this, for district level courts, if the matter has been decided by any JMFC, then the appellate court would be the Sessions court of that district. For Sessions Court, the appellate court would be the High Court, and for High Court, the appellate court would be the Apex Court, i.e. Supreme Court. Whereas in case of the Quasi-Judicial Courts, the appellate Courts are the appellate authorities superior to the decision-making subordinate court. However, there are superior authorities who have been assigned with the appellate powers for adjudication of the appeals. Further if the authorities fail to exercise its powers in a proper manner the litigant has to approaches the High Court for appeal and this reviews the action taken by the authorities. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 S.C. 1125, the Apex Court struck down the restriction on the High Court jurisdiction in regard to judicial review as unconstitutional. It has been held that the appeal should be filed before the Division Bench of the High Court for all decisions of the Administrative Tribunal.
The power of the Court to review the action of the Quasi-Judicial authority, is the procedure by which a court can decide the validity of any action taken by the authorities. The decisions taken by such authorities can be struck down or be declared as null and void by the Court. While reviewing the decision of the Administrative authorities, the Court does not take into consideration the correctness of the decision or the action taken by such authorities, the only thing is considered by the Courts is the manner in which the action is taken. The only question considered by the Courts while a judicial review is that whether the administrative authority has acted within its powers and whether it has followed a proper procedure. In State of A.P. v. C.V. Rao, it was observed by the Supreme Court that, if the Administrative Tribunal had passed an order on the ground of some evidence on record, the said order cannot be challenged on the ground that the evidence on which the Administrative Tribunal passed the order, was not sufficient or was not adequate as the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is within the exclusive power and jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal.
In India, the activities and powers of the Government and administrative authorities have considerably increased which created a need for the enforcement of Judicial review over these powers to ensure enjoyment of liberty guaranteed to the citizen by the Constitution and therefore, the extra-ordinary remedies are provided under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the violation of fundamental rights, under which the orders passed by the administrative authorities can be reversed, rescinded or set aside if such orders are not bonafide or if such orders are ultra-vires the provisions of the Constitution.
Advocate In Action 