Are CIC and SIC's "Judicial" or "Quasi Judicial" bodies ?

[chanda_s]

i have tried to get hold of any indian act whether colonial or post independent which defines quasi-judicial or judicial proceedings without much success. however i am quoting from the restatement(second) of torts which is widely accepted in international jurisprudence. relevant section is section 587.



A party to a private litigation or a private prosecutor or defendant in a criminal prosecution is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, or in the institution of or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates, if the matter has some relation to the proceeding.

Comment:
a. The privilege stated in this Section is based upon the public interest in according to all men the utmost freedom of access to the courts of justice for the settlement of their private disputes. Like the privilege of an attorney, it is absolute. It protects a party to a private litigation or a private prosecutor in a criminal prosecution from liability for defamation irrespective of his purpose in publishing the defamatory matter, of his belief in its truth or even his knowledge of its falsity. One against whom civil or criminal proceedings are initiated may recover in an action for the wrongful initiation of the proceedings, under the rules stated in §§ 674 to 680, if the proceedings have terminated in his favor and were initiated without probable cause and for an improper purpose.

b. The rule stated in this Section is applicable to protect parties to any action before a judicial tribunal. It is immaterial whether the action is criminal or civil in character. Thus the rule applies to a litigant in a civil action, a defendant in a criminal prosecution, or one who, as private prosecutor, formally initiates a criminal action or applies for a search warrant by a written complaint under oath, made to the proper officer, charging another with crime. It applies to communications made by a client to his attorney with respect to proposed litigation as well as to information given and informal complaints made to a prosecuting attorney or other proper officer preliminary to a proposed criminal prosecution whether or not the information is followed by a formal complaint or affidavit.

c. Relation of statement to proceedings. It is not necessary that the defamatory matter be relevant or material to any issue before the court. It is enough that it have some reference to the subject of the inquiry. Thus, while a party may not introduce into his pleadings defamatory matter that is entirely disconnected with the litigation, he is not answerable for defamatory matter volunteered or included by way of surplusage in his pleadings if it has any bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation. The fact that the defamatory publication is an unwarranted inference from the alleged or existing facts is not enough to deprive the party of his privilege, if the inference itself has some bearing upon the litigation.

d. Party as pleader or witness. The rule stated in this Section affords to a party to litigation the same protection from liability for defamatory statements made in his pleadings as that accorded to an attorney under the rule stated in § 586. If the party takes the stand as a witness, he is accorded the privilege under the rule stated in § 588.

e. As to communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, the rule stated in this Section applies only when the communication has some relation to a proceeding that is contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration. The bare possibility that the proceeding might be instituted is not to be used as a cloak to provide immunity for defamation when the possibility is not seriously considered.

f. Judicial proceedings include all proceedings in which an officer or tribunal exercises judicial functions as to which see § 585, Comments c and f. As indicated there, an arbitration proceeding may be included.

this read with the High court of karnataka order which says that the commission has judicial powers when acting under section 19(3) of rti act implies that the proceedings of IC are indeed judicial.

also interesting is the observation of the Hon'ble court that the commission is a tribunal as well. this observation speaks for itself.

[chanda_s]

Sponsorer

Of course yes, since it involves giving judgement.

just because a body gives judgement, it cannot claim to be judicial or quasi-judicial. mandate by statute is essential. in general parlance a body is said to be a judicial or a quasi judicial body when it
possesses powers and duties to (inter alia)
(a) exercise judgment and discretion;
(b) hear and determine or ascertain facts and decide;
(c) make binding orders and judgments;
(d) affect the personal or property rights of private persons;
(e) examine witnesses, compel the attendance of witnesses, and hear the litigation of issues on a hearing; and
(f) enforce decisions or impose penalties

no soveriegn exercises all judicial functions by itself. judicial functions vested in the state or the sovereign are delegated to courts including tribunals or other bodies specifically or generally mandated for the same. the judicial functions of the state, in this case on providing information, have been delegated to the information commission through the rti act. the commission when acting under section 19 (3) of the act is actually exercising the judicial functions of the state delegated to it by the state itself.

it is similar to the state delegating similar judicial functions to high court or supreme court. when acting under section 19(3) the commission is a court in itself, exercising all powers of a court.

[Satish Gupta]

SIC and CIC are quasi judicial bodies.

There are various definitions of the word Quasi-judicial.

Webster's dictionary defines it as an entity that is capable of holding hearings, investigating infarctions of rules and regulations and rendering a decision in such disputes.

Another online dictionary defines it as "The action taken and discretion exercised by public administrative agencies or bodies that are obliged to investigate or ascertain facts and draw conclusions from them as the foundation for official actions."

By both these definitions the SICs and CIC are quasi judicial bodies.

[chanda_s]

SIC and CIC are quasi judicial bodies.

By both these definitions the SICs and CIC are quasi judicial bodies.

thats not the issue being discussed. the discussion is on whether the proceedings or orders of the IC are judicial or not.

[Satish Gupta]

I sincerely apologize.

The topic of the thread said "Are CIC and SIC's "Judicial" or "Quasi Judicial" bodies ?" So I assumed we were talking of the bodies, not their decisions.

However I do not understand the difference. If a body is quasi judicial, its decision will also be "quasi-judicial decisions", if there is such a term.

Please enlighten me.