The Indian Constitution creates a comprehensive legal framework in which the judiciary plays a central role in interpreting laws and delivering justice. However, in a modern administrative and welfare state, the judiciary alone cannot adjudicate every dispute that arises from governance, regulation, taxation, and public administration. As a result, a wide range of authorities perform functions that resemble judicial decision-making without being part of the traditional judicial branch. These authorities are known as quasi-judicial bodies. The distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial functions is crucial to understanding India’s administrative structure, the scope of judicial review, and the constitutional limitations on decision-making by administrative and regulatory bodies. Although both types of functions involve decision-making, their nature, purpose, and procedural requirements differ significantly.

Judicial functions are performed exclusively by courts established under the Constitution. These courts include the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts created under Articles 124, 214, and 233 to 237. Judicial power is the authority to decide disputes between parties, interpret laws, determine facts through evidence, and render binding judgments.

Judicial functions are grounded in principles of independence, impartiality, adherence to statutory and constitutional mandates, and strict procedural requirements. Judges are constitutionally protected through safeguards such as security of tenure, fixed salaries, and removal only through a stringent impeachment process. These protections ensure that judicial decisions are free from external pressure and that the judiciary functions independently of political or executive influence.

Quasi-judicial functions, in contrast, are performed by authorities that are not part of the judiciary. These authorities may belong to the executive or administrative branches or may be independent regulatory bodies. Quasi-judicial bodies are created by statutes, rules, or orders to determine rights, obligations, penalties, or liabilities in specific contexts. They are required to decide matters after hearing affected parties, evaluating evidence, and applying legal standards. Although they mimic judicial processes, they do not possess all attributes of courts. Their primary aim is to deliver quick, specialised, and sector-specific resolutions. Examples include the Competition Commission of India, National Green Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Consumer Commissions, Labour Courts, and regulatory authorities such as SEBI. These bodies serve as important mechanisms for reducing the burden on courts and addressing disputes that require technical expertise.

The key distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial functions lies in their origin, purpose, and procedural framework. Judicial functions originate from constitutional authority, whereas quasi-judicial functions arise from statutory delegation. Judges are constitutionally appointed and exercise powers inherent to the judicial branch. Quasi-judicial authorities exercise powers conferred by legislation, and their jurisdiction is limited by the statute that creates them. Judicial functions are broad, covering constitutional matters, civil and criminal disputes, and public law issues. Quasi-judicial functions are narrow and specialized, confined to specific statutory areas such as taxation, environment, labour, or consumer rights.

Another important distinction relates to procedural rules. Judicial proceedings strictly follow the Indian Evidence Act, Code of Civil Procedure, and Code of Criminal Procedure, depending on the nature of the dispute. Courts must adhere to elaborate procedures that safeguard fairness, due process, and rights of litigants. Quasi-judicial bodies, however, are not bound by strict formal procedures unless the statute mandates otherwise. They may adopt flexible, summary, or simplified procedures to ensure speedy resolution. Yet, they must follow the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard and the rule against bias. If a quasi-judicial authority violates these principles, its decisions can be struck down by courts through judicial review.

Judicial and quasi-judicial functions differ in terms of independence. Courts enjoy complete institutional independence under the Constitution. Their decisions cannot be interfered with by the executive or the legislature except through appeals or constitutional amendments that do not violate the basic structure doctrine. Quasi-judicial bodies, however, operate within the executive framework or under statutory supervision. Their members may be appointed by the government, and their independence may be more limited. While several quasi-judicial bodies have been granted functional autonomy, they do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protection as courts. This difference makes judicial review an essential component of the legal system, ensuring that quasi-judicial bodies act fairly and within the bounds of the law.

A major difference also lies in the finality and binding nature of decisions. Judicial decisions have binding force across the country or specific jurisdictions, depending on the court’s authority. The doctrine of precedent applies to judicial decisions, ensuring consistency and predictability in the law. Quasi-judicial decisions, however, bind only the parties involved unless the statute specifies otherwise. They do not create binding precedents for all future cases, although higher quasi-judicial bodies or appellate tribunals may create interpretative consistency. Ultimately, judicial review ensures that quasi-judicial decisions do not violate statutory or constitutional provisions.

Despite the distinctions, there is considerable overlap. Quasi-judicial bodies perform judicial-like functions because modern governance demands specialised adjudicatory mechanisms. Regulatory sectors such as telecommunications, environment, finance, and competition require technical expertise that regular courts may not have. The creation of tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution reflects this need. However, the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India clarified that tribunals cannot replace the High Courts in exercising judicial power and that their decisions remain subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. This judgment reaffirmed the distinction between judicial authority inherent in constitutional courts and quasi-judicial authority derived from statutes.

Another important area of distinction relates to remedies. Judicial bodies can issue constitutional remedies such as writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto. Quasi-judicial bodies cannot issue such writs; they can only grant remedies permitted by the statute. Judicial bodies can punish for contempt of court, whereas quasi-judicial authorities may only exercise limited contempt powers if expressly granted by statute. This reinforces the superior constitutional position of judicial institutions.

However, judicial review is not an appeal. Courts do not re-examine facts or substitute their judgment for that of quasi-judicial bodies. They merely examine whether the authority acted within its jurisdiction, followed proper procedures, and complied with natural justice. This ensures accountability without undermining the efficiency and expertise of quasi-judicial bodies.

The distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial functions also serves important democratic purposes. Courts protect fundamental rights, uphold the rule of law, and ensure checks on executive and legislative power. Quasi-judicial bodies support this system by offering alternative, specialised dispute resolution mechanisms. Their decisions help maintain regulatory discipline in sectors such as securities, competition, and environmental protection. Yet, to prevent abuse of power, their functioning is closely supervised by the judiciary.

In conclusion, the distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial functions under the Indian Constitution reflects the balance between constitutional safeguards and administrative efficiency. Judicial functions are rooted in constitutional authority, characterised by independence, strict procedural requirements, and binding precedents. Quasi-judicial functions arise from statutory delegation and combine elements of adjudication with administrative flexibility and sector-specific expertise. Although quasi-judicial bodies play an indispensable role in modern governance, their actions remain subject to judicial review to ensure fairness, legality, and adherence to natural justice. This distinction upholds the constitutional design, preserves the supremacy of the judiciary, and ensures that the rule of law remains the guiding principle of public administration in India.