Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India vs. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Ors.
Background
The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) sets tariffs airports can charge airlines and passengers. When airport operators like Delhi International Airport Ltd. challenge AERA's tariff orders before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), a preliminary question arose: can AERA itself defend its tariff order before TDSAT, and if it loses there, can it appeal further to the Supreme Court? The respondents argued AERA is a quasi-judicial body that decides disputes like a court, and courts/tribunals are traditionally not allowed to defend their own orders on appeal (a judge doesn't argue for their own judgment).
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that while it is true that adjudicating authorities normally cannot defend their own orders in appeal, AERA's tariff-fixing function is fundamentally a "regulatory" function, not a purely "adjudicatory" one. It is not deciding a dispute between two contesting parties but setting policy-driven charges considering multiple public-interest factors. Because AERA has a genuine stake in the outcome as a regulator protecting the public interest, it can be validly made a respondent before TDSAT and, having lost there, can appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 31 of the AERA Act even though that section doesn't expressly name who may appeal. The Court traced a large body of precedent distinguishing purely adjudicatory functions (where the deciding body must stay neutral and silent on appeal) from regulatory functions (where the regulator has genuine interest and can participate).
Lesson Learnt
Not every government body that decides matters "like a court" is barred from defending its decisions on appeal: the label "quasi-judicial" matters less than whether the body is genuinely settling a dispute between two private parties or performing a public regulatory role with its own stake in the outcome.