Analysis of the Foundations and Scope of Exceptions to the Judicial Review of the Administrative Justice Court in the Iranian Legal System

Abstract

Judicial review of public administration constitutes a fundamental pillar of the rule of law and an essential mechanism for ensuring the accountability of public power. In the Iranian legal system, the Administrative Justice Court, as the general judicial authority for adjudicating administrative grievances, is entrusted with this function. Nevertheless, the existence of exceptions to the Court’s jurisdiction has posed significant challenges to defining the boundaries of judicial review. The present study aims to analyze the foundations, nature, and scope of these exceptions through a descriptive-analytical approach, drawing on library-based sources and judicial precedents. It examines the hypothesis that some of these limitations do not necessarily derive from explicit statutory provisions but are instead constructed through restrictive interpretations of constitutional principles and structural considerations concerning the distribution and exercise of public power. The findings demonstrate that exceptions to judicial review can be classified into three levels: conceptual exceptions, encompassing the doctrines of governmental acts and judicial self-restraint; structural exceptions, arising from the institutional position of high-ranking state bodies; and statutory exceptions, relating to specialized administrative authorities and tribunals. However, an analysis of the decisions of the General Assembly of the Administrative Justice Court, particularly Judgment No. 968, indicates a jurisprudential shift toward the principles of “general jurisdiction” and “strict interpretation of exceptions.” The results further reveal that, in the absence of clear legislative criteria, judicial precedent plays a decisive role in delineating the boundaries of judicial review. This study argues that, in order to strengthen the rule of law, such exceptions should not be construed as absolute domains immune from judicial scrutiny but rather as narrowly defined exceptions justified by considerations of the public interest. Accordingly, legislative reconsideration of statutory exceptions, the establishment of clear criteria governing the concept of governmental acts, and the continued adoption of a rights-based approach in the Court’s jurisprudence are proposed as key measures for enhancing administrative accountability and effectively guaranteeing citizens’ right of access to justice.