Analysis of the Concept of Jurisdiction and Its Scope in Light of the General Assembly Rulings of the Administrative Justice Court: Another Reflection

Abstract

The principle of jurisdiction and the principle of lack of jurisdiction are significant consequences of the rule of law and serve as tools for assessing the validity or invalidity of administrative decisions in guaranteeing the supremacy of the law. In public law, the general principle is the lack of jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is considered an exception. Therefore, when an act or decision by an administrative authority or institution is issued beyond the framework of legally prescribed competencies, it is deemed null and void. However, there is no consensus on the elucidation and delineation of the concept, nature, and scope of jurisdiction. Some legal doctrines define it within the realm of discretion, while others interpret it within the realm of authority. Consequently, the concepts of jurisdiction and lack of jurisdiction must be analyzed and interpreted together to clarify the boundaries of jurisdiction and the scope of power in legal science. This article, adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, seeks to explain, distinguish, differentiate, and analyze the various types of jurisdictions and common cases of lack of jurisdiction in public law from the perspective of the General Assembly of the Administrative Justice Court. By elaborating and clarifying the court’s rulings, the present study concludes that this judicial body, while recognizing different types of jurisdiction and lack thereof, generally aims to regulate and guarantee the scope of administrative jurisdiction. If a public official or institution’s jurisdiction is not established based on legal principles and rules, its act or decision will be deemed invalid due to a lack of jurisdiction. Findings indicate that the Administrative Justice Court defines "jurisdiction" as the legal power of administrative and judicial bodies and, by emphasizing the principle of the rule of law, supervises the exercise of power by these entities. The research results suggest that the General Assembly of the Administrative Justice Court, through its interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction, strives to balance the exercise of legal powers by administrative bodies with the protection of citizens' rights, relying on the conformity of decisions with legal principles and regulations. Moreover, this judicial institution generally advocates for a restrictive interpretation of mandatory jurisdictions and a broad interpretation of discretionary jurisdictions. By providing reasoned analyses of the General Assembly’s rulings, this study offers a comprehensive theoretical framework for a deeper understanding of the concept of jurisdiction. It emphasizes that the interpretation of jurisdiction in this judicial body is regarded as a legal power aimed at ensuring the enforcement of the law and preventing transgressions of established boundaries. These findings can serve as a foundation for future studies and the revision of existing legal frameworks within Iran’s judicial system.