Islam and the Contemporary World

Islam and the Contemporary World

Delegation of quasi-judicial authority and the right of access to justice: a critical analysis of Uniformity Judgment No. 786 of the General Board of the Supreme Court regarding the decisions of the Disciplinary Council of the Construction Engineerin

Document Type : Original Research Article

Author
seyed hassan hoseyni
)Department of Law, Ramh.C., Islamic Azad University, Ramhormoz, Iran.
10.22034/icwj.2026.591220.1051
Abstract
Under the Engineering System and Building Control Act, the Disciplinary Board of the Construction Engineering Organization has jurisdiction over professional misconduct by its members. Although the Board is not part of the judiciary, the legislature declared its decisions "final and enforceable." This term, however, has sparked judicial disagreement, leading to Unification of Judicial Precedent No. 786 (issued by the Supreme Court's General Assembly on 14 January 2020), which held that the Board's decisions are not subject to appeal in general courts. This study critically examines the legal reasoning behind that precedent. It finds that the Assembly's interpretation of "finality" is questionable. The term "final" in Article 24 need not mean absolute immunity from judicial review; it may simply indicate exhaustion of internal disciplinary remedies. More importantly, Articles 34, 159, and 173 of the Iranian Constitution guarantee the right of access to justice and require judicial oversight over decisions of public authorities. These constitutional principles demand that the Board's decisions remain reviewable, at least on grounds of legality, jurisdictional limits, procedural fairness, and ultra vires actions. Judicial oversight does not undermine the Board's specialized expertise; rather, it reinforces the rule of law and protects individual rights. Accordingly, the article recommends that the scope of judicial review over the Board's decisions be clarified—either through legislative amendment or by reconsidering the prevailing judicial approach—to ensure alignment with constitutional safeguards. Such a step would preserve the efficiency of disciplinary proceedings while upholding fundamental rights and the principle of legality.
Keywords
Disciplinary Board of the Construction Engineering Organization
Right of Access to Justice
Judicial Review
Unification of Judicial Precedent No. 786
Engineering System and Building Control Act of Iran
Subjects