A Comparative Study on the Formative Objectives of the Supreme Court

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Private and Economic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22059/jlq.2025.397725.1008007

Abstract

Introduction
The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body, plays an unparalleled role in the legal system of any society; its founding philosophy and objectives are a function of the historical, social, and legal perspectives of each nation. This article presents practical recommendations for reforming the structure of Iran’s Supreme Court and strengthening its unifying and developmental role, drawing upon comparative experiences. The present study is an endeavor to re-examine the role of the Supreme Court in Iran’s transition toward legal development and the institutionalization of justice at the macro-judicial level.
Method
This article analyzes Iran’s Supreme Court using a comparative, analytical, and critical methodology based on documentary and library research.
Conclusions
A comparative study of the objectives of supreme courts in various legal systems provides a robust foundation for evaluating the status and function of this institution in Iran. The findings of this study indicate that a Supreme Court is not merely a ceremonial body or a high-level appellate court, but rather a fundamental pillar for ensuring the coherence of the legal system and for the development and adaptation of the law to societal exigencies. However, the evolutionary path of Iran’s Supreme Court reveals a significant divergence and gap when compared to successful global counterparts. In the American legal system, the Supreme Court is the “helmsman of legal evolution” and the principal determinant of the nation’s legal trajectory. By accepting only a small percentage of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has become a quasi-legislator, possessing the capacity for effective intervention in fundamental issues and social evolutions, as demonstrated in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where it succeeded in completely transforming the course of American constitutional theories.
In France, inspired by the principles of the 1789 Revolution, the ultimate aim of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation) is to guarantee the principle of equality of persons before the law. The raison d’être of this institution is to resolve interpretive differences and to standardize the application of law for all individuals and in all cases. Consequently, the system of appeal (pourvoi en cassation) in France is open and accessible, allowing even low-value claims to be brought before the high court. Although the traditional structure and the “quashing” (cassation) nature of the court have prevented its extensive engagement with the merits of cases, the future trajectory of its evolution is toward an expansion of its substantive powers. In Germany, the historical ordeal of the Third Reich and the lessons learned from the perils of separating the judiciary from law-making led the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) to adopt both fundamental functions—developing the law in response to societal needs and preserving legal unity and equality—as its paramount objectives. The creative role of the judge and the emphasis on a dynamic and socially oriented interpretation are among the most prominent features of the German legal system.
In Iran, despite drawing inspiration from Western models in establishing the Supreme Court and articulating the goal of ensuring equality in the laws of the Constitutional (Mashruteh) period and thereafter, the institution has not succeeded in realizing its objectives in practice. The unregulated proliferation of divisions (fifty-two active divisions in recent years) has not only failed to resolve conflicts but has turned the Court itself into a source of contradictory, conflicting, and divergent rulings. Indeed, a phenomenon that can be termed “structural autoimmunity”—wherein the Court acts against its own unity—constitutes the primary obstacle to the Supreme Court’s fulfillment of its unifying role. The multiplicity of divisions, the lack of precedential coherence, and the extensive rotation of judges have rendered the authenticity of divisional rulings dependent on individuals rather than the institution of the Court. Furthermore, the dual educational tracks (seminarian and university) have created a heterogeneous scholarly background within the Court, which exacerbates procedural and interpretive disagreements. This is compounded by the fact that the expansion of divisions to various cities (such as Qom and Mashhad at one point) has further rendered meaningless the necessity of centralization, unity, and the exercise of the Court’s moral authority.
Ultimately, the “Supreme Court of Iran” must be redefined as the vibrant heart of coherence, evolution, and justice in the Iranian legal system—an institution whose mission is to produce and stabilize uniform interpretations so that the law is predictable, transparent, and similarly applied for all. In its current state, the Iranian Supreme Court is more of a superior appellate court than a Supreme Court in the true sense of the word.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    ابن‌خلدون، عبدالرحمن بن محمد (بی‌تا). تاریخ ابن‌خلدون. ج۱، مقدمه، تحقیق خلیل شحادة، ط الثانیة، ۱۴۰۸ق. «وأوّل من وضع الدّیوان فی الدّولة الإسلامیّة عمر رضی الله عنه»، بیروت: دارالفکر.

    انوری، حسن (1383). فرهنگ فشرده سخن. تهران: سخن.

    المرتضى الزبیدی (بی‌تا). تاج العروس من جواهر القاموس. ج 18، بیروت: دارافکر، https://lib.eshia.ir/86657/18/207.   (20بهمن 1403).

    أبوالحسن علی بن محمد بن محمد بن حبیب البصری البغدادی، الحاوی (بی‌تا). الشهیر بالماوردی، ماوردی. ج 1، القاهره: دارالحدیث.

    بروجردی، آقامیرزا محمد (1401). اصول محاکمات حقوقی. به کوشش سید ناصر سلطانی، چ دوم، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.

    جعفری­تبار، حسن (1400). دیو در شیشه. تهران: نگاه معاصر.

    شایگان، اسماعیل (1396). اصلاحات در دیوان عالی کشور فرانسه. مجلة کانون وکلا، (238).https://juvenilejusticecentre.org/wp- ontent/uploads/2019/12/Iranian-Central-Bar-Association-Law-Review-vol.-238-autumn-2017.pdf (20 بهمن1403)

    شعبة 25 دیوان عالی کشور، دادنامة 9309983730200241 تاریخ دادنامه: 10/03/1395 دادنامة فرجام خواسته طی دادنامة شماره 00548 - 93/7/9 شعبة دوم دادگاه حقوقی نجف‌آباد، https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/32264(20 فروردین1404)

    صدرزاده افشار، سیدمحسن (1373). تحول دیوان عالی فرانسه. مجلة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، 32(0)، شمارة پیاپی 1144. 53-80.

    https://jflps.ut.ac.ir/article_15183_07ef460b5297fc49f6303889b639e9e0.pdf (12 اسفند 1403)

    عبدالله ابن مقفع (روزبه پارسی)، (1331). رسالة البلغاء. گردآورنده علی‌محمد کرد، مصر: دارالکتب العربیة الکبرى.

    عصام محمد شبارو (1992). قاضی القضات فی الاسلام. بیروت: دارالنهضه العربیه.

    منشی‌زاده، مجتبی (1387). دیوبند و زیناوند در اسطورة تهمورث شاهنامة فردوسی. دانش (فصلنامة مرکز تحقیقات فارسی ایران و پاکستان، اسلام‌آباد)، شماره 93. 61-66 https://pakdanesh.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/093.pdf (19 بهمن1403)

    شمس، عبدالله (1397). آیین دادرسی مدنی پیشرفته. ج 1، چ سی‌وهشتم، تهران: دراک.

    مصدق، محمد (1396). دستور در محاکم حقوقی. به کوشش حسن محسنی، چ نخست، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.

    متین دفتری، احمد (1402). آیین دادرسی مدنی و بازرگانی. چ هفتم، تهران: مجد.

     

    References

    Abdullah Ibn Muqafa (Ruzbah Parsi), (1331). Risalah al-Balgha, Compiled by Ali Muhammad Kurd, Egypt: Dar al-Kitab al-Arabiya Kubra. [In Arabic]

    Abu al-Hassan Ali bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Habib al-Basri al-Baghdadi, (beta). Famous for Mawardi. Mawardi, Vol. 1, Cairo: Dar al-Hadith. [In Arabic]

    Anvari, H. (2004). sokhan comprehensive dictionary persian to persian. Tehran: Speech Publications. [In Persian]

    Al-Zabidi Al-Mortaza (Bita). Taj al-Arus Man Javaher al-Qamoos. Vol. 18, Beirut: Darafker. [In Arabic]

    Boroujerdi, A. M. M. (1401). Principles of Legal Trials. Edited by Seyed Naser Soltani, Second Edition, Tehran: Publication sahami enteshar Company. [In Persian]

    Branch 25 of the Supreme Court, Final Judgment: 9309983730200241 Date of Final Judgment: 1395/03/10 Judgment in Case No. 00548 - 9/7/93, Second Branch of the Najafabad civil Court, https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/32264. [In Persian]

    Charles Evans Hughes (1966). The Supreme Court of the United States; Its Foundations, Methods, and Achievements: An Interpretation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Code de l'organisation judiciaire-Article L411-1Version en vigueur depuis le 09 juin 2006- Création Ordonnance n°2006-673 du 8 juin 2006 - art. 1 (V) JORF 9 juin 2006, Il y a, pour toute la République, une Cour de cassation, https:// www. legifrance. gouv. fr/ codes/ article_ lc/ LEGIARTI000006572198.visited:17/05/2025
    Chemerinsky, E. (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer.

    De Tocqueville, A. (1992). De la Démocratie en Amérique [ci-après De la Démocratie], in Oeuvres. Vol. II, Gallimard: Bibliothèque de la Pléiade.

    Discours de Nicolas Sarkozy, (2010). président de la République, Conseil constitutionnel, Les Nouveaux Cahiers du CC, n° 29. https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/nouveaux-cahiers-du-conseil-constitutionnel/discours-prononce-le-1er-mars-2010-par-m-nicolas-sarkozy-president-de-la-republique. last visited: 20/11/2024.

    Frédéric Zenati-Castaing (2003). La nature de la Cour de cassation, Bulletin d’Information de la Cour de Cassation (B.I.C.C.) 15 avr.

    Frédéric Zenati-Castaing La juridictionnalisation de la Cour de cassation, RTD civ: Revue Trimestrielle de droit civil, ISSN 1635-4273, Nº 3, (2016), 511-530.

    François Terré & Nicolas Molfessis, (2023). Propension du droit à se saisir de tout, Introduction générale au droit, 15e édition, Dalloz.

    Friedrich A. Hayek (1973). Law, Legislation and Liberty. Vol. 1, Rules and Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    George Edward Moore (1925). A defence of Common Sense in Contemporary British Philosophy (Second Series). ed. J.H. Muirhead, London: George Allen & Unwin, 192–233.

    Ibn Khaldun, Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad (Beta). History of Ibn Khaldun. Vol. 1, Introduction, Khalil Shahada's research, 1408 AH, “And the First of Me Was the position of the Diwan in the Islamic State of Omar, may God be Pleased with Him. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr. [In Arabic]

    Issam Muhammad Shabaro (1992). Judge in Islam. Beirut: Dar al-Nahda al-Arabiya. [In Arabic]

    Boré Jacques Boré & Boré Louis Boré (2015). Cour de cassation, Répertoire de procédure civile. Dalloz, paris.

    Jean-François, B. (2001). La Cour de cassation en question. Dalloz, paris.

    Jafari Tabar, H. (1400). Demon in the Glass. Tehran: Contemporary View. [In Persian]

    Kluger, R. (1975). Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality (pp. 308–315). Knopf.

    Luis, B. (2018). Questions sur le projet de filtrage des pourvois. Gazette du Palais, (17), GPL 15 mai 2018, n° GPL322y0.

    Matin Daftari, A. (1402). Civil and Commercial Procedure. 7th Edition, Tehran: Majd Publications. [In Persian]

    Montesquieu, (1951). Le pouvoir arrête le pouvoir. De l'Esprit des lois, livre XI, chapitre 4, OEuvres complètes, Vol. 2, Édition de Roger Caillois Parution le 29 Juin 1951, Achevé d'imprimer le, Gallimard: Bibliothéque de la Pléiade.

    Monshizadeh, M. (2008). Deoband and Zeinavand in the Myth of Tahmoorth in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh. Danesh (Quarterly Journal of the Persian Research Center of Iran and Pakistan, Islamabad), No. 93. [In Persian]

    Mosaddeq, M. (2017). Order in Law Courts. by Hassan Mohseni, first edition, Tehran: Publication sahami enteshar Company. [In Persian]

    Raoul Berger, (1997). Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Hist), Harvard University Press (HUP).

    Sadrzadeh Afshar, S. M. (1994). The Evolution of the French Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, 32(0), Serial Number 1144. [In Persian]

    Shaygan, I. (2017). Reforms in the Supreme Court of France. Journal of the Bar Association, (238).

    Shams, A. (2018). Advanced Civil Procedure. Vol. 1, 38th edition, Tehran: Drak. [In Persian]

    1. Reports: Brown v. Board of Education, 344 U.S. 1 (1952). https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/ service/ ll/usrep/ usrep344/ usrep344001/ usrep344001. pdf. and (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, (Volume) 98 Federal Supplement (F. Supp( p.p 797, 798 (D. Kan. 1951)), v. Board of Education, Vol. 347 United States Reports (U.S.) 483-495).

    Turley, J. (2019). Op-Ed: Make the Supreme Court bigger, but not the Democrats' Way. Los Angeles Times, Retrieved February 22, (2023). https:// www. latimes. com/ opinion/ op- ed/ la- oe-turley-supreme-court-packing-democrats-20190404-story.html.last visited5/5/2025

    Zimmermann, R. (1990). The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Zoller, E. (2011). Considérations sur les causes de la puissance de la Cour suprême des États-Unis et de sa retenue, Les Nouveaux Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel, n° 33.

    • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
    • Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
    • Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
    • Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
    • Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
Law Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 3
October 2025
Pages 403-427

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics