The necessity of the institution for the protection of the Constitution is based on the adoption of this law at the top of the hierarchy of legal rules so as to have the capacity to review the ordinary law and annul it in the event of conflict. In some countries, this is the responsibility of judicial bodies. One of the important issues is the independence of Constitutional Courts, which is directly related to their correct function. In India, protection of the Constitution is conducted through the two institutions of the Supreme Court at the national level and High Courts in the States. Judicial independence in these Courts has emerged as organizational independence and personal independence. The Constitution of India and the Supreme Court’s opinions in the issue of organizational independence have eliminated the influence of other branches of government and in the issue of personal independence, although not at the level of structural independence, have considerably predicted the mechanisms of using of judicial independence by judges.

In the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Supreme Constitutional Court is established to protect the constitution. Granting this jurisdiction to the Supreme Constitutional Court, requires adequate provision of institutional independence of the Court and individual independence of the judges of this court. In a descriptiveanalytical way, this paper seeks to answer the question of whether the Supreme Constitutional Court's independence has been secured. The legal measures taken to ensure the institutional independence of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt are: determine the court judges by the General Board, examination of the responsibility of the court judges by the general board, the financial independence of the court and the administrative independence of the court,whereas the irremovability of judges, their long-term membership in the court, the maintenance of their jobs, the prohibition of more than one occupation and the provision of adequate salaries for judges, provides the individual independence of the Supreme Constitutional Court judges. By defining these rules in the Egyptian constitution and ordinary laws, the independence of the court is guaranteed in order to perform its duties and powers correctly and impartially.

The concept of repairable damage is completely defined in the Civil Liability Act (1960) as well as in the Civil Law works. Despite this clarity, the same concept is subject to some restrictions in the judicial decisions of the Iranian Supreme Court: in comparison with its pure theoretical concept, the repairable damage in its judicial concept, as offered by the Supreme Court, has a narrower domain. While the loss of certain profits and the cost imposed on the victim as a result of mitigating damages are considered by the Doctrine as claimable, the Supreme Court has maintained that such losses are consequential. I have tried, in this article, to criticize this attitude of the Supreme Court on the basis of the legal principles and the Islamic Jurisprudence.      

Since its establishment, the Administrative Justice Court has been the authority for adjudicating disputes arising from the exercise of public powers. It serves as a venue for the public to seek redress from the governing authorities in administrative matters. Based on Articles 170 and 173 of the Constitution, a judicial body has been established to address the grievances and complaints of citizens against government agencies and their officials. The ruling number 792 of the Supreme Court has recognized the right of the government to seek redress in the Administrative Justice Court. Following this judicial precedent, judges have focused on the fact that the government has the right to appeal against all rulings of quasi-judicial authorities. The main question of this paper is whether this ruling conflicts with the Constitution, fundamental principles of public law, and the principle of impartial trial. This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, argues that this ruling, despite constitutional requirements, has challenged the understanding of the judicial system regarding the right of the public to seek redress, without regard to the fundamental principles of public law. The aforementioned ruling not only violates Article 173 of the Constitution but also has consequences, including the expansion of government authority and the limitation of citizens' rights and freedoms

The aim of the present study is to identify and analyze the factors reducing productivity in the Supreme Audit Court. This research was conducted in 2023using a mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative). In the qualitative part, an exploratory method was used to identify the factors. Semi-structured and in-depth interviews were conducted with19 experts, selected through purposive and snowball sampling. After analyzing the interviews and coding the responses, 34 indicators of factors reducing productivity were identified within 2 main dimensions and 9 components. The statistical population of the quantitative section of the study included all official and contractual employees of the supreme audit court and 31provinces, totaling 1,960 people. A 47-item questionnaire was designed, and using a mean comparison test, the impact of each factor on the reduction of productivity was identified. The results of hypothesis testing indicated that individual, organizational, the legislative, the executive components, and components of other supervisory institutions have a positive and significant impact on the reduction of productivity in the supreme audit court. However, the impact of the expediency council, the judicial branch components, media components, and general public components on the reduction of productivity in the supreme audit court was not confirmed. The results showed that although all components and their indicators were considered impactful on reducing productivity from the perspective of the research experts, from the perspective of the questionnaire respondents, the components of the expediency council, the judicial branch, the media, and the general public did not play a significant role in reducing productivity.

The Egyptian Constitution of 1971 addressed the issue of the necessity of protecting the Constitution and established the Supreme Constitutional Court for this task. This body is currently is protecting the Constitution of 2014, as stipulated in Article 192 of the Constitution and Article 25 of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, as the task of "monitoring the constitutionality of statutes and regulations". While the laws in the Egyptian legal system are diverse, the effectiveness of the constitutional review system requires the adoption of ordinances to expand the scope of the Supreme Constitutional Court. One of these ordinances is that all laws are subject to the constitutional review of the Court. Accordingly, ordinary laws, Supplementary Constitutional Laws, laws approved by the referendum, abolished laws, parliamentary internal regulations, international treaties, and decisions of the president are subject to the constitutional review of the Supreme Constitutional Court. This is a mark of the effective and genuine constitutional review system in Egypt. However, the Constitutional Amendment rule is out of the constitutional review scope of the Supreme Constitutional Court. In this article, the efficiency of the constitutional review of statutes in the law of Egypt has been investigated.

The Supreme Court, is at the top of Courts in the hierarchy of the Iranian courts. Article 161 of the Constitution, stated monitors the proper implementation of laws in courts and the creation of a unified judicial system is authority for this institution. Also, Ordinary law, provides specific jurisdictions for Supreme Court, such as resolving disputes over the jurisdiction. Given the ambiguities and deficiencies about relations between Supreme Court and the Administrative Justice Court, this article explores the ratios of these courts in a descriptive-analytical format. The studies showed that the Administrative Justice Court as a special tribunal is in the hierarchy below the Supreme Court and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Country. Also, the ordinary legislator's approach was identified in recognizing the Supreme Court's role in resolving jurisdiction disputes between the Courts consistent with the Supreme Court's position. To this end, a specialist structural prediction on matters relating to public law in the Supreme Court is proposed.

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.

Ambiguous of legal provisions need to be interpreted by the courts and legal institutions, including the Supreme Court. But this kind of interpretations should not be limited to formal interpretation without any regard to nature of legal relations. Because of the fact that it makes some problems in implementation of judgment in practice. Supreme Court precedent No.708 is an example of this type of approach where the nature of dowry and right of lien under Article 1085 of the Civil Code have not been Considered. The presented interpretation of the Article 1085 in practice surprised each neutral person in the case of long-term installments. This study presents a critical analysis of supreme court verdict with resort to the role of dowry in the marriage and wife right of lien. In conclusion, it can be said that verdict has issued regardless of the non-commutative nature of marriage, hence it is necessarily needs to be changed because of the negative impacts it makes in practice.