Need to improve Quasi-Judicial Courts

Need to improve quasi-judicial organisations. For the welfare of the populace, quasi-judicial courts must operate more efficiently. There is a subset of quasi-judicial organisations that is not brought up in discussions about the status of cases.

In order to make quasi-judicial courts serve the interests of the public, it is necessary to improve them.


  • Workload: Since the revenue authorities that work for these quasi-judicial organisations also have to handle law and order, coordination, and other administrative duties, they have significantly less time to devote to court work.
  • Understaffed: Many agencies lack sufficient employees.
  • Absence of electronic platform: These organisations lack computers, video recorders, and supporting functions including case filing and summons issuance. Only a few states, including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra, have these amenities.
  • Lack of knowledge: Many presiding officers lack a thorough understanding of the rules and regulations.
  • Harassment of civilians: Due to workload and staffing shortages, justice is not delivered promptly, which leads to harassment of citizens.
  • Inadequate supervision: The administrative and political leadership does not effectively oversee these entities. There is a need to resolve these concerns since they result in incomplete data on the status of the cases, which becomes the cause of understaffing.

Quasi-judicial agencies: Significance

  • As they handle crucial land and related matters, the effectiveness of these authorities is crucial.
  • Their inability to deliver swift justice leads to harassment of individuals as well as the facilitation of criminal activity by unscrupulous elements.

10 steps process to make quasi-judicial courts work for people

  1. The government should prioritise ensuring that these agencies are operating properly, and periodic publications of full information on their operations are also required. It should be presented to the relevant legislation, and based on these findings, the staff size should be chosen. It will guarantee responsibility.
  2. Third, a platform should be created electronically to manage all ancillary work associated with the administration of justice. This would make it easier to examine how these bodies operate.
  3. Fourth, the senior authority should make it essential for the subordinate courts to undergo yearly inspections. Based on these inspections, presiding officers’ training should be determined.
  4. Fifth, it is important to support interdisciplinary research on how these courts operate. This would highlight the areas that needed improvement, including law changes or the issuance of clear rules.
  5. Sixth, the adjudicating authority should periodically undergo regular training and orientation.
  6. Seventh, these quasi-judicial courts’ state performance index should be made public. Focusing on the development of these agencies would benefit the states that don’t score well on the index.
  7. Eighth, major judgments, policies, and instructions might be assembled and posted on the website of the highest court, such as the Board of Revenue. These would be beneficial for smaller agencies.
  8. Tenth, these adjudicating bodies should embrace the Civil Procedure Code change advocated by the Law Commission as well as other procedural reforms.
  9. Ninth, sufficient training should be provided to the officials performing judicial work in the revenue courts.
And get notified everytime we publish a new blog post.