This is a picture of a flower.
Osman Mozayen

Since the time of the Constitutional Revolution, the establishment of a judiciary has been one of the most important demands of the people and activists; because until then, the important matter of judgment was in the hands of the government and the rulers themselves were responsible for judging and resolving the disputes of the people. With the exercise of this power by the rulers, it led to the development of their own autonomy and if someone had a complaint against the ruling or the government, it was not addressed. Only when an impartial judicial system is created, especially for handling the disputes or complaints of the people, separate from the government and rulers, can one claim to achieve desired justice in society. Based on this, an independent judiciary has been established and has the authority and power to handle all lawsuits.

Whenever the level of government interference in the judicial process increases, we will move further away from fair trials. However, in practice, governments tend to intervene in the judicial process and try to limit the independence of the judiciary in various ways.

Just as the independence of the judicial system is important, efforts must also be made for the independence of the institution of advocacy. This is because it is the inherent and essential duty of a lawyer to provide defense against the government or the judicial system, and the necessary prerequisite for this defense is the independence of the lawyer. Limiting the independence of the lawyer puts their inherent duty at risk and exposes them to serious dangers and harm.

Preserving independence of the lawyer will lead to ensuring the defense rights of the accused and achieving a fair trial, and without an independent lawyer, we will not have hope for a fair trial and achieving the standards of that trial.

Advanced and civilized societies have gradually come to the conclusion that a dependent and controlled lawyer under the supervision and control of the judicial system or government is wrong and detrimental. Preserving the independence of lawyers and ensuring their freedom to defend within the framework of a professional organization of lawyers, which is formed and directly elected by lawyers, is possible. Surely, lawyers should be able to freely choose their representatives without any limitations.

International standards regarding the conditions and affairs of attorneys also emphasize the necessity of the independence of lawyers and the professional organization of attorneys, the establishment of a bar association and its members from among lawyers. These standards have long been in line with the regulations related to attorneys, and lawyers have traditionally chosen their representatives without restrictions from among their qualified colleagues. The criteria for electing and being elected were clearly stated in the law, without the involvement of any external entity outside the bar association as an overseer or determiner of qualified lawyers.

After the approval of the Law on Quality of Obtaining Judicial License in 1376, the qualification of candidates for membership in the Bar Association’s Board of Directors was evaluated by the Disciplinary Court and that court would announce qualified lawyers for candidacy.

There are fundamental issues with this situation; firstly, with the approval of the mentioned law, lawyers do not have the right to directly elect members of the Bar Association’s board of directors, and unfortunately, lawyers choose their representatives from among individuals approved by the disciplinary court judges, which is tantamount to limiting the right to choose. Secondly, the role and position of the disciplinary court is solely to handle crimes and violations, and to handle objections to the decisions of the disciplinary court, and there is no provision in any legal texts for this court to have the right to reject the qualifications of lawyers who volunteer to be members of the board of directors. Thirdly, the activity and actions of any court are carried out while observing the principles of due process and the right to defense of the accused lawyer or judge, and determining the qualifications of lawyers is a non-judicial matter, therefore, determining the qualifications of lawyers cannot be within the jurisdiction and authority of a judicial authority. Fourthly, in the event