Justice, in its most basic definition, is an ideal that stands for something that and just. Fundamentally, it means acting in a just, unbiased, fair, and proper manner. Justice nowadays essentially refers to the acceptance and application of legislatively enacted laws. Furthermore, unlike ancient states, this function is mostly performed by judicial organs in the present environment.

1. What are Quasi-Judicial Bodies?
Introduction:
Justice, in its most basic definition, is an ideal that stands for something that and just.
Fundamentally, it means acting in a just, unbiased, fair, and proper manner. Justice nowadays
essentially refers to the acceptance and application of legislatively enacted laws. Furthermore,
unlike ancient states, this function is mostly performed by judicial organs in the present
environment.
Salmond claims that the bodies of rules that tribunals acknowledge and follow while dispensing
justice are known as laws. Even Roscoe Pound defined laws as rules that are upheld by public
authorities.
The Indian Constitution is founded on the principle of natural justice. The fundamental tenet of
this philosophy is outlined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Indian
Supreme Court is crucial in elevating the value of the natural justice principle in India.
Under A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, the court adopts a very stale position and declares that
any procedure outlined by any Statute falls inside the definition of "procedure established by law"
as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. When interpreting this Article, such a procedure may
take precedence over the ideas of rationality, natural justice, or due process.
The Non-judicial entities with the authority to interpret the law are known as quasi-judicial bodies.
These are organizations that could be governmental administrative agencies, as well as
organizations governed by a contract or private law, such as an arbitration panel or tribunal
board.

2. When a body has judicial authority but only partially exercises it, it is referred to as a
quasi-judicial body. In this capacity, it performs some of the functions of a court, including
adjudication and decision-making, but it is not strictly obligated to follow those procedures.
Also Read: Supreme Court Latest Updates
What are Quasi-judicial bodies?
Quasi-judicial entities are non-judicial organizations with the authority to interpret the law. They
are organizations, such as an arbitration panel or tribunal board, which could be public
administrative agencies but also a contract or private law entity, and which have been given
powers and procedures similar to those of a court of law or judge, and which must objectively
determine the facts and draw a conclusion from them to serve as the foundation for any
subsequent decisions.
A person or entity with authority comparable to that of a court of law is referred to as a
quasi-judicial body. The concerns that are relevant to the specific administrative agency are the
only ones that fall under quasi-judicial activity. These organizations were created to lighten the
load on the courts.
Penalties for the guilty can be decided by quasi-judicial bodies. This authority is not available to
quasi-judicial bodies, who must instead base their decisions on the law already in place. Knowing
the significance of the aforementioned authorities, we are aware that the defense of immunity
under tort law is necessary to prevent interference with their ability to carry out their jobs.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General of
India (CAG), and the National Green Tribunal are some of the significant quasi-judicial
organizations.
You can also go through “Frequent White Collar Crimes And Their Causes”
Evolution of Quasi-judicial bodies:
In both industrialized and developing nations, the expansion of administrative tribunals has been
a key phenomenon of the 20th century. Numerous Tribunals have been established periodically in
India as well, both at the federal level and at the state level, encompassing a variety of activities
such as trade, industry, banking, taxation, etc.
The Government of India had been deliberating for a very long time on the issue of creating
Administrative Tribunals to offer quick and affordable redress to government employees
regarding disputes on recruitment and other terms of employment.
It wasn't until relatively recently that reasoned orders were acknowledged in India as a
component of natural justice. In Siemens Engg. & Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, the
Supreme Court ruled that the requirement that quasi-judicial bodies provide justifications for any
orders they issue must be regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice.
Features of quasi-judicial bodies:

3. The following are the traits that define the quasi-judicial bodies:
1. Arbitrating Disputes: The quasi-judicial entities arbitrate cases and determine
punishments; parties can turn to these organizations for justice without having to deal
with the legal system's red tape. The disagreements can be over money, how rules should
be followed, or anything else that isn't immediately related to the judiciary. For instance,
tribunals are quasi-judicial agencies that help two parties, often states, reach amicable
solutions to disputes.
2. The limited function of adjudication: Their authority is typically restricted to one particular
area of competence, such as financial markets, employment laws, public standards,
immigration, or regulation.
3. Justice is predetermined by predetermined rules: Awards and judgments of quasi-judicial
organizations frequently depend on predetermined rules or punishments depending on
the type and seriousness of the committed offense.
4. The award can be challenged in court: Such punishment may be legally enforceable
under a country's law, but the court of law, which is the last and most important authority,
can still be used to appeal the decision.
Also Read: Legal News
How can quasi-judicial entities function more effectively?
Government priority: The government needs to prioritize these agencies' effective operation
and state its stance on the matter explicitly.
1. Information gathering is essential: A minimum of once each year, comprehensive data on
how these agencies are operating must be gathered and released.
2. Procedure improvements: These adjudicating authorities should implement the
procedural reforms recommended by organizations like the Law Commission for revision
of the Civil Procedure Code, such as minimizing adjournments, requiring the filing of
written arguments, and other similar reforms.
3. Digitalization of court records: To handle all ancillary activity associated with the
administration of justice, such as the filing of complaints, issuance of summonses,
movement of case records between courts, issuing copies of judgments, and so forth, an
electronic platform should be built.
4. Study of these bodies' operations: It is advisable to support interdisciplinary research on
how these courts operate. This would highlight the areas that needed improvement,
including law changes or the issuance of clear rules.
5. Authorities should undergo periodic training and orientation: The adjudicating authorities
should undergo periodic training and orientation.
Conclusion:
The application of the natural justice concept is not constrained by any particular boundaries;
rather, it depends on the characteristics of the jurisdiction, the powers granted to the
administrative body, and the nature of the rights that the individual is having violated.

4. Therefore, if any authority is granted at any point during the process, the judicial role is not purely
acknowledged; rather, the principal's primary goal is to avoid a miscarriage of justice. One must
keep in mind that the principles of natural justice are necessary for any administrative settlement
to be recognized as valid since any judgment or order that violates them will be deemed to be
null and void in nature.
You can also go through “The legal scenario around Narco analysis and polygraph tests in India”