What is the difference between Regulatory bodies and Quasi-Judicial bodies? If appeal lies against their decision in judicial courts, then do these quasi judicial bodies serve any purpose? Explain.
नियामक निकायों और अर्ध-न्यायिक निकायों के बीच क्या अंतर है? यदि न्यायिक अदालतों में उनके फैसले के खिलाफ अपील होती है, तो क्या ये अर्ध न्यायिक निकाय किसी उद्देश्य की पूर्ति करते हैं? समझाएं।
Approach
Candidates can start the answer by writing on basic difference and then highlight how it does the partial justice under serve its purpose also in the end highlight the need and how it serving the purpose by alternate view.
Introduction
Regulatory bodies and quasi-judicial bodies are the two broad categories of statutory bodies. Both of them are formed with the help of a statute that is basically an act passed by the legislature.
Body
Difference between Regulatory and quasi-judicial body:
As the word regulatory suggests these bodies perform certain regulatory roles on the other hand quasi-judicial have a limited power to interpret law.
Regulatory bodies have a regulatory role, they are independent bodies that are formed by a legislative act (statue) to set certain standards in different field and further perform different operations to enforce those standards.
The quasi-judicial body can be an individual or body having powers similar to that of the court. They can adjudicate a case and decide the penalty for the guilty. They are different from judicial bodies in the fact that they don’t follow the strict judicial rules of evidence, CRPC and CPC.
Recommendary, toothless and appeal in courts serves partial justice:
Their powers are usually limited to a very specific area of expertise and authority, such as land use and zoning, financial markets, public standards etc. National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women, National Commission for Minorities, etc. are examples of quasi-judicial bodies.
Most of these bodies are recommendatory in nature, like NHRC and CIC. They can’t even award compensation or relief to the victims directly, but can only recommend. These bodies also lack enforcement mechanism & compliance to rules.
A person can again appeal in the court against the decision of the Quasi-judicial and regulatory body. This fades away the advantage of cost and time provided by the regulatory and Quasi-Judicial body.
Independency, expertise in their functioning reduces the burden of courts it serves the purpose of their formation:
Lessen the burden of court: These bodies reduce the burden of judiciary which is having huge number of pending cases.
Expertise: Generally, members of the bodies have necessary expertise and specialisation in the particular area which help immensely in cases. Thus expertise is a major advantage.
Accessible: These are easily accessible to common people and moreover these involve very low cost as compared to judiciary.
Flexibility: Judiciary generally refer to its old judgements but quasi bodies have flexibility to operate. They have flexible approach in dealing with the cases hence are approached frequently by the people.
Suo moto Power: Some of these bodies are having Suo moto power that is they can enquire on their own on proceedings. For example, National Human rights commission can initiate proceedings on their cases based on reports from media or their knowing of human rights violations.
Autonomy of Functioning: They are fully independent in their functioning outside the purview of executive. For example, NHRC can ask state governments for information related to any incident in lieu of Human rights violation happened in state.
Conclusion
Regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies are crucial for proper functioning of the government. They play an integral role in making every sector of the government robust. Govt should choose individual with both technical and legal knowledge and providing them with power to take decision will be a booster to this organ of Government.
