Explaining Manifest Contradiction with Islamic Sharia from the Perspective of Islamic Jurisprudence and Statutory Law

Abstract

In the Iranian legal system, the principle is that judgments issued by the relevant courts become final after the exhaustion of appellate procedures. Once the judgment attains finality, the ruling proceeds to the execution stage. However, there are exceptions where a final judgment may be revoked, and the execution process halted. Among these exceptions is the issuance of a judgment that is manifestly contradictory to Islamic Sharia, as reflected in Article 477 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Given that Iran's legal system is derived from and influenced by Shi'a jurisprudence, no law should be enacted contrary to the definitive principles of jurisprudence. Consequently, judicial decisions, which by constitutional mandate must be based on statutory law, must not contradict fundamental jurisprudential principles. The enforcement mechanism for this issue involves the annulment of the judgment (even if finalized) and its return to the judicial process.