REFORMING QUASI-JUDICIAL SYSTEMS: A PATH TO EFFICIENCY AND JUSTICE

India's quasi-judicial bodies, spanning revenue offices, land record departments, and administrative tribunals, play a critical role in resolving disputes and ensuring governance at the grassroots level. However, the vesting of quasi-judicial powers in bureaucratic officers—most of whom lack judicial training—has led to inefficiencies, delays, and a growing backlog of cases. With pendency plaguing not only the judiciary but also administrative and state-managed offices, the common public bears the brunt of delayed justice. This blog examines the limitations of bureaucratic officers exercising quasi-judicial functions, proposes the appointment of judicial officers or advocates as acting magistrates, and advocates for a digital solution akin to an e-courts app to streamline quasi-judicial processes and reduce pendency.

The Futility of Quasi-Judicial Powers in Bureaucratic Hands
Quasi-judicial bodies, such as those under revenue departments, land record offices, and state ministries, handle disputes like land title conflicts, tax assessments, and licensing issues. These bodies are often presided over by bureaucratic officers—tehsildars, deputy commissioners, or other administrative officials—who are granted quasi-judicial powers under statutes like the Land Revenue Codes or state-specific laws. However, the percentage clustering of these officers with a judicial background is minuscule, and those with exposure to legal procedural law are even rarer. Their primary training lies in administration, not adjudication, making it impractical to expect them to navigate complex legal principles, evidence evaluation, or due process with the rigor of a trained judicial officer.

This lack of expertise leads to several issues:
a) Inconsistent Decisions: Without a deep understanding of legal precedents or procedural fairness, officers may issue rulings that lack uniformity or are vulnerable to appeals.
b) Delays in Disposal: Bureaucratic officers juggle administrative and quasi-judicial roles, leading to delays in hearing and resolving cases.
c) Procedural Errors: Unfamiliarity with legal procedures often results in violations of natural justice, such as inadequate notice or biased hearings, necessitating higher court interventions.
The result is a system where justice is neither swift nor certain, leaving citizens entangled in prolonged disputes over land, revenue, or administrative matters.

The Pendency Crisis Beyond the Judiciary
While judicial pendency—over 50 million cases as of 2025—is a well-documented crisis, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are equally burdened. Revenue courts, for instance, handle millions of land-related disputes annually, with states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra reporting backlogs spanning decades. Land record offices face delays in mutation entries, title corrections, and survey disputes, while administrative tribunals under state ministries grapple with licensing, pension, and service-related cases. These bodies, primarily under state government jurisdiction, contribute significantly to the public's frustration with governance.

The pendency in quasi-judicial systems stems from:
a) Overburdened Officers: Bureaucrats managing both administrative and adjudicatory roles lack the time to prioritize case disposal.
b) Lack of Specialization: Unlike judges, officers are not trained to handle evidence or legal arguments efficiently.
c) Manual Processes: Many offices rely on outdated, paper-based systems, slowing down case tracking and resolution.
d) Limited Access: Rural citizens often struggle to navigate these bodies due to distance, language barriers, or lack of legal aid.

This crisis disproportionately affects the common public, particularly farmers, small landowners, and marginalized communities, who rely on these offices for their livelihoods and rights.

A Proposed Solution: Judicial Officers and Acting Magistrates
To address the futility of quasi-judicial powers in untrained hands and reduce pendency, a radical reform is necessary: appointing judicial officers or advocates as acting magistrates to oversee quasi-judicial functions. This approach would leverage legal expertise to ensure fair, efficient, and legally sound adjudications. Here's how it could work:
a) Judicial Officers: State governments could depute trained judicial officers (e.g., civil judges or judicial magistrates) to preside over high-volume quasi-judicial bodies, such as revenue courts or land tribunals. These officers, well-versed in procedural law and evidence, would ensure compliance with natural justice and expedite case disposal.
b) Acting Magistrates: Registered advocates with a minimum experience (e.g., 5–7 years) could be appointed as acting magistrates on a contractual or part-time basis. Advocates, regulated by the Bar Council of India, are trained in legal interpretation, evidence analysis, and dispute resolution, making them ideal candidates for quasi-judicial roles. They could handle cases in districts with heavy backlogs, easing the burden on bureaucrats.

This model would not only professionalize quasi-judicial proceedings but also create a career pathway for advocates, addressing unemployment in the legal profession. States like Karnataka and Gujarat have experimented with similar models, appointing retired judges to clear tribunal backlogs, with promising results.

The Role of Technology: An E-Courts-Like App for Quasi-Judicial Cases
Technology offers a transformative solution to pendency and accessibility issues. The success of the e-Courts platform, which enables case tracking, e-filing, and virtual hearings for judicial cases, provides a blueprint for quasi-judicial reforms. An e-courts-like app tailored for quasi-judicial cases could revolutionize administrative justice by:
a) E-Filing and Case Tracking: Citizens could file applications, submit documents, and track case status online, reducing the need for physical visits to offices.
b) Virtual Hearings: Video conferencing could enable remote hearings, making justice accessible to rural and marginalized communities.
c) Centralized Database: A unified platform for revenue, land, and administrative cases would streamline record-keeping and facilitate inter-departmental coordination.
d) Automated Reminders: Notifications for hearings, document submissions, and deadlines would reduce adjournments and delays.
e) Public Access to Orders: Digitized orders and case outcomes would enhance transparency and accountability.

Such an app could integrate with existing platforms like the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) or state-specific portals, ensuring interoperability. For instance, land record disputes could link with digital land registries (e.g., Bhoomi in Karnataka or DILRMP), enabling real-time updates to records upon case resolution.

Benefits for the Common Public
The proposed reforms—judicial oversight and a digital platform—would yield significant benefits:
a) Faster Justice: Trained judicial officers or advocates would dispose of cases more efficiently, reducing pendency in revenue and administrative offices.
b) Accessibility: An e-courts-like app would empower citizens, especially in rural areas, to engage with quasi-judicial processes without bureaucratic hurdles.
c) Transparency: Digital case tracking and public access to orders would curb corruption and favoritism, common in manual systems.
d) Cost Savings: Reduced travel and legal expenses would make justice affordable for low-income groups.
e) Legal Certainty: Decisions grounded in legal principles would withstand scrutiny, minimizing appeals to higher courts.

These changes would particularly benefit farmers resolving land disputes, small businesses seeking licenses, and individuals navigating administrative grievances, aligning with the government's goal of "ease of living."

Challenges and Implementation
Implementing these reforms requires overcoming several challenges:
a) Resource Allocation: States must invest in training judicial officers, onboarding advocates, and developing the digital platform.
b) Stakeholder Resistance: Bureaucratic officers may resist ceding quasi-judicial powers, necessitating clear policy directives.
c) Digital Divide: Rural areas with limited internet access will need offline support, such as Common Service Centres (CSCs).
d) Capacity Building: Judicial officers and advocates will require orientation on quasi-judicial procedures specific to revenue and administrative laws.

A phased approach—piloting the model in high-pendency states like Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, followed by nationwide scaling—could ensure success. Collaboration between the Ministry of Law and Justice, state governments, and technology partners (e.g., NIC) would be crucial.

Conclusion
The vesting of quasi-judicial powers in bureaucratic officers, most of whom lack judicial training, has created a bottleneck in India's administrative justice system, exacerbating pendency and denying timely relief to the common public. By appointing judicial officers or advocates as acting magistrates and launching an e-courts-like app for quasi-judicial cases, India can transform this landscape. These reforms would professionalize adjudication, digitize processes, and make justice accessible, efficient, and transparent. At V-Corps Law Firm, we advocate for systemic changes that empower citizens and streamline governance, ensuring that justice is not just a promise but a reality.

For assistance with quasi-judicial disputes or legal advice, contact V-Corps Law Firm at vcorps16@gmail.com.