1
Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India
A quasi-judicial body is an organization or individual on which powers resembling a court of law have been conferred. Such a body can adjudicate and decide upon a situation and impose penalty upon the guilty or regulate the conduct of an individual or entity.
A quasi-judicial body has also been defined as “an organ of government, other than a court or legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through adjudication or rule-making.
Thus, a quasi-judicial body is one, which exercises a discretion that is essentially judicial in character, but is not a tribunal within the judicial branch of the government and is not a court exercising judicial power in the constitutional sense.
Emergence of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India
As the welfare state has grown up in size and functions, more and more litigations are pending in the judiciary, making it over-burdened. It requires having an alternative justice system.
Ordinary judiciary has become dilatory and costly.
With scientific and economic development, laws have become more complex,
demanding more technical knowledge about specific sectors.
The conventional judiciary is suffering from procedural rigidity, which delays the justice.
Further, a bulk of decisions, which affect a private individual come not from courts, but from administrative agencies exercising ad judicatory powers.
Quasi-judicial Action vs. Administrative Action
Though the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative action has become blurred, yet it does not mean that there is no distinction between the two.
In A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, the Court was of the view that in order to determine whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, one has to see the nature of power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within which power is conferred and the consequences.
Thus broadly speaking, acts, which are required to be done on the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority, are called ‘administrative’ acts, while acts, which are required to be done on objective satisfaction of the administrative authority, can be termed as quasi-judicial acts.
Administrative decisions, which are founded on pre-determined standards, are called objective decisions whereas decisions which involve a choice, as there is no fixed standard to be applied are so called subjective decisions. The former is quasi-judicial decision, while the latter is administrative decision. In case of administrative decision there is no legal obligation, upon the person charged with the duty of reaching the decision, to consider and weigh submissions and arguments or to collate any evidence. The grounds upon which he acts, and the means which he takes to inform himself before acting are left entirely to his discretion.
Student Notes:
However, the Supreme Court observed, “It is well settled that the old distinction between a judicial act and administrative act has withered away and we have been liberated from the pestilent incantation of administrative action.”
Examples of Quasi Judicial Bodies
National and State Human Rights Commissions
Lok Adalats
Central and State Information Commissions
Central Vigilance Commission
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Administrative Tribunals
Competition Commission Of India
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity
Railway Claims Tribunal
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal
Central Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
State Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Note: The above list is not exhaustive.
Tribunals
There are a large number of laws, which charge the Executive with adjudicatory functions, and the authorities so charged are, in the strict scene, administrative tribunals. Administrative tribunals are agencies created by specific enactments. Administrative adjudication is a term synonymously used with administrative decision-making.
The decision-making or adjudicatory function is exercised in a variety of ways. However, the most popular mode of adjudication is through tribunals.
The main characteristics of Administrative Tribunals are as follows:
Administrative Tribunal is a creation of a statute.
An Administrative Tribunal is vested in the judicial power of the State and thereby performs quasi-judicial functions as distinguished from pure administrative functions.
Administrative Tribunal is bound to act judicially and follow the principles of natural justice.
It is required to act openly, fairly and impartially.
An administrative Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence prescribed by the civil procedure court.
Criticisms of Tribunals are as follows:
The tribunal consists of members and heads that may not possess any background of law.
Tribunals do not rely on uniform precedence and hence may lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decisions.
Student Notes:
Evolution of Tribunals
The growth of Administrative Tribunals, both in developed and developing countries, has been a significant phenomenon of the twentieth century. In India also, innumerable Tribunals have been set up from time to time, both at the center and the states, covering various areas of activities like trade, industry, banking, taxation etc. The question of establishment of Administrative Tribunals to provide speedy and inexpensive relief to the government employees, relating to grievances on recruitment and other conditions of service, had been under the consideration of Government of India for a long time. Due to their heavy preoccupation, long pending and backlog of cases, costs involved and time factors, Judicial Courts could not offer the much-needed remedy to government servants, in their disputes with the government. A need arose to set up an institution, which would help in dispensing prompt relief to harassed employees, who perceive a sense of injustice and lack of fair play in dealing with their service grievances. This would motivate the employees better and raise their morale, which in turn would increase their productivity.
The First ARC and a Committee under J.C. Shah recommended the establishment of an independent tribunal to exclusively deal with service matters. The same was validated by the Supreme Court in 1980.
The Constitution (through 42ndAmendment Act, Article 323-A) empowered the Parliament to provide for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and constitution of service of persons appointed to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or of any state or local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the government or any corporation, owned or controlled by the government.
In pursuance of the provisions of Article 323-A of the Constitution, the Administrative Tribunals Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 29thJanuary 1985 and received the assent of the President of India on 27th February 1985.
Judicial Review of Cases Handled by Tribunals
In S. P. Sampath Kumar case, the Supreme Court directed the carrying out of certain measures with a view to ensuring the functioning of the Administrative Tribunals along constitutionally sound principles. In an amendment the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 32 was restored. Constitutional validity of the Act was finally upheld in S. P. Sampath Kumar case subject to certain amendments relating to the form and content of the Administrative Tribunals. The suggested amendments were carried out by another amending Act. Thus the Administrative Tribunals became an effective and real substitute for the High Courts.
However, in 1997, a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar held that clause 2 (d) of article 323A and clause 3(d) of article 323B, to the extent they empower Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution.
Student Notes:
All decisions of the Administrative Tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. As a result, orders of the Administrative Tribunals are being routinely appealed against in High Courts, whereas this was not the position prior to the L. Chandra Kumar’s case. On 18th March 2006, the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Bill, 2006 was introduced in Rajya Sabha to amend the Act by incorporating therein, inter alia, provisions empowering the Central Government to abolish Administrative Tribunals, and for appeal to High Court to bring the Act in line with L. Chandra Kumar. The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 17th Report said that the appeal to High Court is unnecessary, and if a statutory appeal is to be provided it should lie to the Supreme Court only. The Law Commission also took up the topic suo-moto and agreed with the opinion put forward by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Categories of Tribunals in India
There are four categories of tribunals in India:
1. Administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether as part and parcel of the Department or otherwise.
2. Administrative adjudicatory bodies, which are outside the control of the Department involved in the dispute and hence decide disputes like a judge free from judicial bias Example: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is under the Ministry of Law and not under Ministry of Finance.
3. Tribunals under Article 136 in which the authority exercises inherent judicial powers of the State. Because the functions of the body are considered important over the control, composition and procedure, even Departmental bodies can be classified as Tribunals.
4. Tribunals constituted under Article 323A and 323B having constitutional origin and enjoying the powers and status of a High Court.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Consumer Protection Act was passed in 1986 to protect the interests of the consumers. The objective of this law is to provide a simple, fast and inexpensive mechanism to the citizens to redress their grievances in specified cases. By spelling out the rights and remedies of the consumers in a market so far dominated by organized manufacturers and traders of goods and providers of various types of services, the Act makes the dictum, caveat emptor (‘buyer beware’) a thing of the past.
The Act envisages a three-tier quasi-judicial machinery at the National, State and District levels:
i. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - known as “National Commission”;
ii. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission known as “State Commission”; and
iii. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - known as “District Forum”.
The Act also provides for establishment of Consumer Protection Councils at the Union, State and District levels, whose main objectives are to promote and protect the rights of consumers.
Each District Forum is headed by a person who is, has been or is eligible to be appointed as a District Judge and each State Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court.
Student Notes:
The provisions of this Act cover ‘goods’ as well as ‘services’. The goods are those, which are manufactured or produced and sold to consumers through wholesalers and retailers. The services are in the nature of transport, telephone, electricity, housing, banking, insurance, medical treatment, etc.
A written complaint can be filed before the District Consumer Forum for pecuniary value of up to Rs. twenty lakh, State Commission for value upto Rs. one crore and the National Commission for value above Rs. one crore, in respect of defects in goods or deficiency in service. The service can be of any description and the illustrations given above are only indicative. However, no complaint can be filed for alleged deficiency in any service that is rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an alternative in addition to that already available to the aggrieved persons/consumers by way of civil suit. In the complaint/appeal/petition submitted under the Act, a consumer is not required to pay any court fee, but only a nominal fee.
Consumer Fora proceedings are summary in nature. The endeavor is made to grant relief to the aggrieved consumer as quickly as possible, keeping in mind the provisions of the Act which lay down time schedule for disposal of cases.
If a consumer is not satisfied by the decision of a District Forum, he can appeal to the State Commission. Against the order of the State Commission, a consumer can come to the National Commission.
In order to help achieve the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, the National Commission has also been conferred with the power of administrative control over all the State Commissions by calling for periodical returns regarding the institution, disposal and pendency of cases.
The National Commission is empowered to issue instructions regarding:
Adoption of uniform procedure in the hearing of the matters,
Prior service of copies of documents produced by one party to the opposite parties,
Speedy grant of copies of documents, and
Generally over-seeing the functioning of the State Commissions and the District Forums to ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act are best served, without interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.
Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India
A quasi-judicial body is an organization or individual on which powers resembling a court of law have been conferred. Such a body can adjudicate and decide upon a situation and impose penalty upon the guilty or regulate the conduct of an individual or entity.
A quasi-judicial body has also been defined as “an organ of government, other than a court or legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through adjudication or rule-making.
Thus, a quasi-judicial body is one, which exercises a discretion that is essentially judicial in character, but is not a tribunal within the judicial branch of the government and is not a court exercising judicial power in the constitutional sense.
Emergence of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India
As the welfare state has grown up in size and functions, more and more litigations are pending in the judiciary, making it over-burdened. It requires having an alternative justice system.
Ordinary judiciary has become dilatory and costly.
With scientific and economic development, laws have become more complex,
demanding more technical knowledge about specific sectors.
The conventional judiciary is suffering from procedural rigidity, which delays the justice.
Further, a bulk of decisions, which affect a private individual come not from courts, but from administrative agencies exercising ad judicatory powers.
Quasi-judicial Action vs. Administrative Action
Though the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative action has become blurred, yet it does not mean that there is no distinction between the two.
In A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India, the Court was of the view that in order to determine whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, one has to see the nature of power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within which power is conferred and the consequences.
Thus broadly speaking, acts, which are required to be done on the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority, are called ‘administrative’ acts, while acts, which are required to be done on objective satisfaction of the administrative authority, can be termed as quasi-judicial acts.
Administrative decisions, which are founded on pre-determined standards, are called objective decisions whereas decisions which involve a choice, as there is no fixed standard to be applied are so called subjective decisions. The former is quasi-judicial decision, while the latter is administrative decision. In case of administrative decision there is no legal obligation, upon the person charged with the duty of reaching the decision, to consider and weigh submissions and arguments or to collate any evidence. The grounds upon which he acts, and the means which he takes to inform himself before acting are left entirely to his discretion.
Student Notes:
However, the Supreme Court observed, “It is well settled that the old distinction between a judicial act and administrative act has withered away and we have been liberated from the pestilent incantation of administrative action.”
Examples of Quasi Judicial Bodies
National and State Human Rights Commissions
Lok Adalats
Central and State Information Commissions
Central Vigilance Commission
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Administrative Tribunals
Competition Commission Of India
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity
Railway Claims Tribunal
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal
Central Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
State Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Note: The above list is not exhaustive.
Tribunals
There are a large number of laws, which charge the Executive with adjudicatory functions, and the authorities so charged are, in the strict scene, administrative tribunals. Administrative tribunals are agencies created by specific enactments. Administrative adjudication is a term synonymously used with administrative decision-making.
The decision-making or adjudicatory function is exercised in a variety of ways. However, the most popular mode of adjudication is through tribunals.
The main characteristics of Administrative Tribunals are as follows:
Administrative Tribunal is a creation of a statute.
An Administrative Tribunal is vested in the judicial power of the State and thereby performs quasi-judicial functions as distinguished from pure administrative functions.
Administrative Tribunal is bound to act judicially and follow the principles of natural justice.
It is required to act openly, fairly and impartially.
An administrative Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence prescribed by the civil procedure court.
Criticisms of Tribunals are as follows:
The tribunal consists of members and heads that may not possess any background of law.
Tribunals do not rely on uniform precedence and hence may lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decisions.
Student Notes:
Evolution of Tribunals
The growth of Administrative Tribunals, both in developed and developing countries, has been a significant phenomenon of the twentieth century. In India also, innumerable Tribunals have been set up from time to time, both at the center and the states, covering various areas of activities like trade, industry, banking, taxation etc. The question of establishment of Administrative Tribunals to provide speedy and inexpensive relief to the government employees, relating to grievances on recruitment and other conditions of service, had been under the consideration of Government of India for a long time. Due to their heavy preoccupation, long pending and backlog of cases, costs involved and time factors, Judicial Courts could not offer the much-needed remedy to government servants, in their disputes with the government. A need arose to set up an institution, which would help in dispensing prompt relief to harassed employees, who perceive a sense of injustice and lack of fair play in dealing with their service grievances. This would motivate the employees better and raise their morale, which in turn would increase their productivity.
The First ARC and a Committee under J.C. Shah recommended the establishment of an independent tribunal to exclusively deal with service matters. The same was validated by the Supreme Court in 1980.
The Constitution (through 42ndAmendment Act, Article 323-A) empowered the Parliament to provide for adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and constitution of service of persons appointed to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or of any state or local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the government or any corporation, owned or controlled by the government.
In pursuance of the provisions of Article 323-A of the Constitution, the Administrative Tribunals Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 29thJanuary 1985 and received the assent of the President of India on 27th February 1985.
Judicial Review of Cases Handled by Tribunals
In S. P. Sampath Kumar case, the Supreme Court directed the carrying out of certain measures with a view to ensuring the functioning of the Administrative Tribunals along constitutionally sound principles. In an amendment the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 32 was restored. Constitutional validity of the Act was finally upheld in S. P. Sampath Kumar case subject to certain amendments relating to the form and content of the Administrative Tribunals. The suggested amendments were carried out by another amending Act. Thus the Administrative Tribunals became an effective and real substitute for the High Courts.
However, in 1997, a seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar held that clause 2 (d) of article 323A and clause 3(d) of article 323B, to the extent they empower Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. The Court held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Constitution is part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution.
Student Notes:
All decisions of the Administrative Tribunals are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls. As a result, orders of the Administrative Tribunals are being routinely appealed against in High Courts, whereas this was not the position prior to the L. Chandra Kumar’s case. On 18th March 2006, the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Bill, 2006 was introduced in Rajya Sabha to amend the Act by incorporating therein, inter alia, provisions empowering the Central Government to abolish Administrative Tribunals, and for appeal to High Court to bring the Act in line with L. Chandra Kumar. The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its 17th Report said that the appeal to High Court is unnecessary, and if a statutory appeal is to be provided it should lie to the Supreme Court only. The Law Commission also took up the topic suo-moto and agreed with the opinion put forward by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Categories of Tribunals in India
There are four categories of tribunals in India:
1. Administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions, whether as part and parcel of the Department or otherwise.
2. Administrative adjudicatory bodies, which are outside the control of the Department involved in the dispute and hence decide disputes like a judge free from judicial bias Example: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is under the Ministry of Law and not under Ministry of Finance.
3. Tribunals under Article 136 in which the authority exercises inherent judicial powers of the State. Because the functions of the body are considered important over the control, composition and procedure, even Departmental bodies can be classified as Tribunals.
4. Tribunals constituted under Article 323A and 323B having constitutional origin and enjoying the powers and status of a High Court.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Consumer Protection Act was passed in 1986 to protect the interests of the consumers. The objective of this law is to provide a simple, fast and inexpensive mechanism to the citizens to redress their grievances in specified cases. By spelling out the rights and remedies of the consumers in a market so far dominated by organized manufacturers and traders of goods and providers of various types of services, the Act makes the dictum, caveat emptor (‘buyer beware’) a thing of the past.
The Act envisages a three-tier quasi-judicial machinery at the National, State and District levels:
i. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - known as “National Commission”;
ii. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission known as “State Commission”; and
iii. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - known as “District Forum”.
The Act also provides for establishment of Consumer Protection Councils at the Union, State and District levels, whose main objectives are to promote and protect the rights of consumers.
Each District Forum is headed by a person who is, has been or is eligible to be appointed as a District Judge and each State Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court.
Student Notes:
The provisions of this Act cover ‘goods’ as well as ‘services’. The goods are those, which are manufactured or produced and sold to consumers through wholesalers and retailers. The services are in the nature of transport, telephone, electricity, housing, banking, insurance, medical treatment, etc.
A written complaint can be filed before the District Consumer Forum for pecuniary value of up to Rs. twenty lakh, State Commission for value upto Rs. one crore and the National Commission for value above Rs. one crore, in respect of defects in goods or deficiency in service. The service can be of any description and the illustrations given above are only indicative. However, no complaint can be filed for alleged deficiency in any service that is rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an alternative in addition to that already available to the aggrieved persons/consumers by way of civil suit. In the complaint/appeal/petition submitted under the Act, a consumer is not required to pay any court fee, but only a nominal fee.
Consumer Fora proceedings are summary in nature. The endeavor is made to grant relief to the aggrieved consumer as quickly as possible, keeping in mind the provisions of the Act which lay down time schedule for disposal of cases.
If a consumer is not satisfied by the decision of a District Forum, he can appeal to the State Commission. Against the order of the State Commission, a consumer can come to the National Commission.
In order to help achieve the objects of the Consumer Protection Act, the National Commission has also been conferred with the power of administrative control over all the State Commissions by calling for periodical returns regarding the institution, disposal and pendency of cases.
The National Commission is empowered to issue instructions regarding:
Adoption of uniform procedure in the hearing of the matters,
Prior service of copies of documents produced by one party to the opposite parties,
Speedy grant of copies of documents, and
Generally over-seeing the functioning of the State Commissions and the District Forums to ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act are best served, without interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment