Judicial and quasi-judicial acts
Quasi-judicial — an authority that is obligated to act judicially by an express provision or by its acts, or by an essential implication of a bill or an act, and whose judgements are commonly considered quasi-judicial. Although executive or administrative entities are not compelled to operate in a judicial manner and are competent to deal with matters brought to them, their decisions cannot be considered quasi-judicial. For example, "Engg. Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd" in this case. A quasi-judicial body or act implies that the topic must be decided by two or more parties and an outside authority. As a result, the existence of two competing parties is required in order for the statutory authority to function as a quasi-judicial body. In circumstances where there are no two rival parties, it is a judicial procedure which is required to be followed in Quasi-Judicial acts.
Quasi-judicial is also known as a non-judicial body which has the ability to interpret law. It is an entity or an agency, which has powers and procedures that resemble a court of law or judge, and which is obliged to determine facts and draw conclusions from them so as to provide the basis of an official action. Therefore, these actions are remedy for a situation or to impose legal penalties, and the actions may affect the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties.
A judicial act is an act performed by a competent authority for the consideration of facts and situations that impose liability or affect the rights of others. The term 'judicial' does not necessarily mean the act of a Judge or Legal Committee meeting for the discovery of a matter of law, but it does mean an act performed by a competent authority for the consideration of facts and situations that impose liability or affect the rights of others. The case "Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson" is about the definition of "judicial." The term 'judicial' was discovered to have two meanings. It refers to the performance of responsibilities that can be done by a Judge or Judges in court, as well as administrative activities that are not required to be performed in court, but are necessary to decide what is legal.
The difference between “judicial” and “ministerial acts” is – if a Judge is in a dealing a particular matter, has to exercise his discretion or power to arrive at a decision, he is acting judicially; if on the other hand, he is merely required to do a particular act and is prevented from entering into merits of the matter, he is said to be acting ministerially.
Quasi-judicial is an elegant term but it may cause some danger that its critics may condemn along with the natural judicial process. Those who have not understood its importance have suffered from a misapplication and lack of analysis. But in recent times it has been consistently developed in the courts. The correct understanding of this is practical interest and significance.