A quasi-judicial body is a non-judicial entity with the power to interpret the law. These organizations, such as an arbitrator or a tribunal board, have similar authority and norms of procedure to courts of law. In order to serve as the basis for governmental action, they must objectively evaluate the facts and provide responses. Only a few items, such as zoning, public standards, financial markets, and land use, are under their authority.

A quasi-judicial body’s activities offer solutions to problems; they also have the authority to use rulemaking to impose legal sanctions that might damage the rights of private parties. A quasi-judicial entity does not necessarily have to resemble a court of law; the Indian electoral commission is an example of a quasi-judicial organization that does not. The National Human Rights Commission, Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal, SEBI, Central Information Commission, and others are some further instances of quasi-judicial entities in India.

The Quasi-Judicial bodies can also be created to fulfil specific purposes

1. Central administrative tribunal: This entity looks after the disputes concerning civil servants. For instance, determining the age of civil servants in case of a dispute.
2.  National Human Rights Commission: It determines cases involving a violation of human rights. They investigate human rights abuse and recommend steps to prevent it.
3. National River Water Dispute Tribunal: This body looks after disputes between states involving water-sharing issues. They have the power to grant awards to share water among disputing states.
4. Election Commission:  This body is in charge of conducting, controlling, and supervising elections. It also performs some judicial functions like examining and maintaining a code of conduct, also determining the disqualification of legislators.
5. Other regulatory bodies: Besides the above-mentioned bodies there are some other bodies like the SEBI, TRAI, and IRDA that ensure transparency in the market economy. They are also empowered to punish for violation of rules by fines.

The characteristic features of the Quasi-Judicial :

• Adjudicating Disputes: The quasi-judicial bodies adjudicate and decide penalties, the parties can approach these bodies for justice without undergoing the hassle of approaching the judiciary. The disputes can be monetary, the conduct of rules, or any dispute not directly linked with the judiciary. For instance, tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that bring about amicable solutions to problems between two parties, especially states.
• Nature of the quasi-judicial bodies: These bodies can be statutory, regulatory, or constitutional. The National Human Rights Commission is a statutory body, the Finance Commission is a constitutional body and the SEBI is a regulatory body all these bodies perform specific judicial functions as well.
• Heads of the bodies: Unlike the judiciary which is headed by a judge, these bodies are led by individuals who are well-versed in a field like Finance, Economics, and Law.
• Limited powers: The powers of these bodies are limited unlike the judiciary, they can only decide on cases that fall under their purview of expertise.  For instance, the Company Law Appellate Tribunal can decide cases regarding the governance and functioning of corporate companies their powers are limited to this area.
• Power of punishing: These bodies are not merely advisory they have the authority to punish in matters that fall under their jurisdiction. For example, the Consumer Court of India deals with consumer disputes and punishes the company indulging in illegal practices.
• Judicial review: The verdicts issued by these bodies can be challenged in a court of law, and the decision of the judiciary is supreme.

The advantages of quasi-judicial bodies are as follows:

1. Cost-effective: tribunals are cost-effective in comparison to the conventional judicial processes. The cost-friendly nature of the tribunals encourages people to seek justice and redress their grievances.
2. Hassle-free: the tribunals do not require lengthy or complex procedures for submitting applications. These bodies are accessible, free from technicalities and they proceed more rapidly and efficiently under expert supervision.
3. Sharing of workload: The tribunals by taking up many cases reduce the workload of the judiciary. For example, the National Green Tribunal adjudicated on matters concerning the environment and pollution.
4. Speedy justice: they are more efficient and provide speedy redressal of grievances.
5. Expert knowledge: A tribunal consists of experienced and knowledgeable individuals who easily understand the technicalities of the case brought before them thereby providing the right solution to the problem.

Note:

1. The concept of Quasi-judicial bodies is new to India; as a result, these bodies are mostly understaffed and burdened with a lot of cases rendering the very purpose of speedy justice ineffective.
2. The decisions and judgements given by the Tribunals are often challenged in the courts of law which also negate the very purpose of a quasi-judicial body.
3. The cost-effective nature of the tribunals encourages people to fight for justice but also invites a lot of false cases to the tribunals.

The Indian federation cannot function without the quasi-judicial entities that ensure each individual receives their fair share of justice. By lessening the workload of the judiciary and delivering prompt justice to the wronged, it effectively serves its purpose. However, in order to make these bodies effective and receptive to the demands of the people of the country, the government must take proactive measures to close the gaps that now exist in their operation.