Formal and Substantive Grounds for Annulment of City Islamic Councils’ Resolutions in the Judgments of the Administrative Justice Court

Abstract

City Islamic Councils, as decentralized local bodies within Iran’s legal and political system, play a significant role and possess the authority to enact binding decisions and supervise local affairs. However, the scope of these councils’ powers is shaped by multiple legal sources, including the Constitution, ordinary legislation, and principles of public law. The local nature of the councils’ jurisdiction and the administrative character required for their decisions, along with the necessity to comply with Islamic principles, national laws, and the principle of national sovereignty, constitute important limitations that make oversight of their activities essential. Among various forms of oversight, judicial supervision is particularly important because its enforceability can better preserve the councils’ independence against tutelary (governmental) controls. In Iran, the Administrative Justice Court is responsible for adjudicating certain claims related to City Islamic Councils, and its control over binding resolutions is of special significance. The Administrative Justice Court, through two levels of review — its Chambers and the General Assembly — directly influences council decisions. By annulling or upholding council resolutions, the General Assembly significantly affects the scope and manner of the councils’ exercise of their statutory powers. Consequently, the most important competence of City Islamic Councils — the enactment of binding resolutions — is shaped by the jurisprudence of the Administrative Justice Court. This relationship illustrates the close connection between local institutions and judicial oversight. Accordingly, this article, taking into account the councils’ delegated authorities, examines the formal and substantive grounds on which the Administrative Justice Court annuls their resolutions.