Difference between an Administrative Act and a Quasi-Judicial Act: Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare

Introduction

In the last post, we discussed administrative review of a quasi-judicial action. In the present post, we shall understand what is meant by a Quasi-Judicial Act and how it is different from an Administrative Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, (2002) 5 SCC 685, has beautifully explained the distinction between the two. The below-mentioned case laws and the reasoning are inspired from the Indian National Congress judgment. This judgment has settled the difference between a Quasi-Judicial Act and an Administrative Act in the Indian Jurisprudence.

Quasi-Judicial Act

The dictionary meaning of the word quasi is “not exactly”. Thus ‘quasi’ is something in between a Judicial and an Administrative Function. In many cases, the Administrative Authorities have been held be ‘quasi-judicial’ where there are two contending parties and the authority-in-charge is responsible to decide the rights of the parties. This definition has also found favour in Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB 309, wherein it was held that:

“The definition of a quasi-judicial decision clearly suggests that there must be two or more contending parties and an outside authority to decide those disputes.”

Thus presence of a lis or two rivalling parties is a must in such cases to hold the statutory authority as a quasi-judicial authority. However, what would happen where there is no lis or rivalling parties before the authority. Such a situation has been dealt with in R v. Dublin Corporation, (1878) 2 Ir R 371, wherein the meaning of the term ‘judicial’ was expounded. The Court said that the term ‘judicial’ does not necessarily mean acts of a Judge or legal tribunal sitting for the determination of matters of law, it may also be an act done by a Statutory Authority by Application of Mind and imposing liability of any kind or affects rights of the party in question.

Similarly, in R v. Electricity Commissioners, (1924) 1 KB 171, it was held that any legal body, that has authority to affect rights of the parties and has an obligation to act wisely and judicially by making an enquiry of some kind, could be termed as a Quasi-Judicial Body and any such act done by that body is a Quasi-Judicial Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, contemplated two situations relating to quasi-judicial acts:

1. If there is a Statutory Authority that decides disputes between two parties who oppose each other, determines their respective rights and has a duty to act judicially, then decision of such an Authority is a Quasi-Judicial Act.

2. If there is a single party approaching a Statutory Authority that has the power to prejudicially affect that party and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the party opposing it, then also the Final Determination of the Statutory Authority, if it acts judicially, will be Quasi-Judicial Act.

Thus we see that presence of a lis is sufficient to hold an act of a Statutory Authority as a Quasi-Judicial Act and even in absence of a lis, the said Authority would be a Quasi-Judicial Authority if it is required to act judicially.

Administrative Act

Before moving further, let us understand what an Administrative Act is. The Black’s Law Dictionary (8^th Edition) defines ‘Administrative Act’ as:

“An act made in a management capacity esp., an act made outside the actor’s usual field (as when a judge supervises court personnel). An Administrative Act is often subject to greater risk of liability than act within the actor’s usual field.”

The abovementioned definition describes the technical aspects of an Administrative Act (E.g. Chief Engineer of a Government Department performs administrative functions when he/she invites Tender for purchase of certain equipments). What is important to remember is that an Administrative Act is purely guided and dictated by policy and expediency whereas a quasi-judicial function is required to be performed according to the rules. Another important distinction is that a Quasi-Judicial Authority must act judicially i.e. the Authority must make an enquiry by following the relevant procedure before arriving at a decision.

The duty to act judicially is not sacrosanct in performance of an Administrative Act. The only responsibly while discharging an administrative function is to follow the Principles of Natural Justice unless the Statute especially prohibits so. In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, (1967) 2 SCR 625, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically stated that an Administrative Order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the Principles of Natural Justice.

Conclusion

We see that there is a very thin line of difference between a Quasi-Judicial Act and an Administrative Act. However, the difference is important to understand as the nature of the act performed by the Statutory Authority would determine the rules that are to be followed. In absence of a lis, the only thing separating a Quasi-Judicial Act and an Administrative Act is the judicial procedure that is to be mandatorily followed in a Quasi-Judicial Act.