Abstract: This article examines the nature of "Rāy-e Vaḥdat-e Ruyye" (Precedent) in the Iranian legal system. Issued by the Supreme Court's General Assembly, these rulings aim to create uniformity in judicial practice where discrepancies exist in the interpretation of laws. While binding on all courts, they are not "laws" in the strict sense, but rather a form of judicial interpretation. Examining their historical evolution and emphasizing the principle of separation of powers, the article concludes that the Supreme Court's authority is limited to resolving disputes and interpreting existing laws, not creating new ones or altering legislation.

magine a situation where different courts in Iran interpret a particular law in different ways, leading to inconsistent judgments. To address this, the Supreme Court issues a ruling called "Rāy-e Vaḥdat-e Ruyye." This ruling clarifies how the law should be interpreted, ensuring that all courts apply it uniformly. While this ruling is binding on all courts, it's not a new law. It's simply an interpretation of an existing law by the highest court in the land. The article emphasizes that the Supreme Court's role is limited to interpreting the law, not creating or changing it.