| Summary: | easonableness and Legality of judicial decisions are among the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions, and the Administrative Justice Court (“AJC”) as a judicial institution is subject to this rule. However, it is undeniable that in some cases, the General Board of Administrative Justice Court (“GBAJC”) has evaded or neglected to abide by this rule.
Failure of the GBAJC to comply with this rule could be occurred in invocation of any of the legal evidences. In this paper, by studying the types of violation of this rule by the GBAJC in invocation of "the Constitution", it was seen that this violation resulted in issuing doubtful or even wrongful decisions. Hence, given that the GBAJC is the unique referee for complaint of governmental regulations, and its judgments are not supervised by any other institutions, it can be rightly expected that it shall try harder for precise observance of this rule; in particular, given that the consequences of its wrongful judgments in revocation or not revocation of governmental regulations not only is confined to the plaintiff itself but can affect a large group of people.
|
|---|
