Quasi-judicial Bodies-Advantages & Disadvantages

Quasi judicial bodies

Quasi judicial bodies are those autonomous bodies which have power similar to that of law imposing bodies but these are not courts. These bodies can inquire, investigate, summon & award legal penalties to any administrative agency. Generally these bodies have limited judiciary power in specialised areas such as:
1. NHRC/SHRC in human rights violation 
2. CVC in corruption cases
3. CIC/SIC related to RTI act
4. NGT in environment cases
5. Income tax tribunals

Important quasi-judicial bodies in India are as:

  • National Human Rights Commission
  • State Human Rights Commission
  • Central Information Commission
  • State Information Commission
  • National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
  • State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
  • District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
  • Competition Commission of India
  • Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
  • State Electricity Regulatory Commission
  • Railway Claims Tribunal
  • Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
  • Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal
  • Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
  • Banking Ombudsman
  • Insurance Ombudsman
  • Income tax Ombudsman
  • Electricity Ombudsman
  • State Sales tax Appellate Tribunal



1. Lessen the burden of court: These bodies reduce the burden of judiciary which is having  huge number of pending cases.

2. 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.

3. Accessible : These are easily accessible to common people and moreover these involve very low cost as compared to judiciary

4. Flexibility: Judiciary generally refer to its old judgements but quasi bodies have flexibility to operate.

5. 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.

6.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.

7. Simplicity 

8.Low Cost  & Relatively quick judgements



1. lack of manpower: Many Quasi Judicial bodies are under-staffed so proper and quick investigation is not being done.

2. No independence like judiciary thus affected from interference from executive.

3. Toothless tiger(No Power to punish): 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.

4. Limited jurisdiction

5. A person can again appeal in the court against the decision of the Quasi Judicial body. This fades away the advantage of cost and time provided by the Quasi Judicial body.

6. Many members of these bodies are ex-bureaucrats without any training of law, this hampers the proper way of justice.


Therefore, as a whole, quasi-judicial body is a good concept as it reduces the burden on Judiciary but there are some loopholes there in this system also. 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.


Prepared by: Ashish Kumar

One thought on “Quasi-judicial Bodies-Advantages & Disadvantages”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *