نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Preserving thesupremacy of the constitution as a national covenant necessitates efficient supervisory mechanisms.In Iran, the Guardian Council, with its dual composition of Islamic jurists and lawyers, epitomizes preenactment review, scrutinizing parliamentary approvals from theperspectives of both Sharia and the constitution prior totheir enforcement.In contrast, the Supreme Court of India, relying onthe common law tradition and mechanisms suchas citizen petitions,represents the model of postenactment review,wherein laws are reexamined after enactment in light of judicial decisions.This study by examining the structure, competencies,procedures, and performance ofthese two institutions, systematically compares the strengths and weaknesses of each model.The findings indicate that Iran's preenactment review model,centered on prevention, is effective in maintaining legal uniformity and averting the social costs ofinconsistent legislation,yet it may face challenges suchas legislative sluggishness and conflict with dynamic social developments.Conversely India's postenactment review model,emphasizing flexibility,empiricism, and the gradual development oflaw through judicial opinions,enables responsiveness to changing societal needs; however,it contends with challenges like prolonged proceedings and the social costs of implementing illegitimate laws Ultimately,by offering a comparative analysis and lessons for both systems, the article underscores that the choice or reform of a supervisory model must be undertaken with due consideration toeach society's politicalcultural context, foundations of legitimacy and developmental requirements.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)