A New Perspective on the Judge’s Disqualification for Substantive Opinion; A Comparison of Criminal Procedure in Iran and the U.S. Federal System

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor, Law Department, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/law.2026.68117.3505

Abstract

The impartiality of judicial authorities is a fundamental principle of criminal procedure. One manifestation of this principle is the statutory recognition of grounds for judicial recusal. Article 421 of Iran’s Code of Criminal Procedure identifies a judge’s prior substantive opinion on a case as one such ground. However, Ruling No. 517 of the Iranian Supreme Court, which categorizes a judge’s preliminary opinions on a defendant’s prosecutability (e.g., during objections to a dismissal order or in resolving disputes between investigators and prosecutors) as procedural rather than substantive, raises significant legal questions. Is this ruling consistent with established legal norms? Can such opinions genuinely be characterized as non-substantive? Does judicial scarcity justify this interpretive approach? This study examines the conditions for recusal due to prior substantive opinions, analyzing their legal nature through a descriptive-analytical methodology. Comparative insights—particularly from U.S. federal law (28 U.S. Code §§ 47 and 455, which govern judicial disqualification)—enrich the analysis. Findings reveal that while both legal systems share commonalities, U.S. jurisprudence adopts a broader interpretation of recusal grounds, emphasizing impartiality as a decisive criterion. The U.S. framework encompasses additional scenarios where bias or partiality may arise, underscoring a more rigorous commitment to judicial neutrality.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) فارسی

    کتاب‌ها

    1. خالقی، علی (1393). آیین دادرسی کیفری، تهران: پژوهشکده حقوقی شهر دانش.
    2. رحمدل، منصور (1394). آیین دادرسی کیفری، تهران: دادگستر.
    3. زراعت، علی و مهاجری، علی (1382). آیین دادرسی کیفری، تهران: فکرسازان.
    4. شاهچراغ، حمید (بی‌تا)، جزوۀ آیین دادرسی کیفری مؤسسۀ داداستان.
    5. شمس، عبدالله (1390). آیین دادرسی مدنی، تهران: دراک.
    6. طهماسبی، جواد (1402). آیین دادرسی کیفری، تهران: میزان.
    7. کریمی، عباس (1386). آیین دادرسی مدنی، تهران: مجد.

    مقالات

    1. توحیدی، احمدرضا و رشیدی، مهناز (1395). استقلال و بی‌طرفی رسیدگی‌های قضایی در نظام کیفری بین‌الملل، حقوقی دادگستری، 80 (95)، 11-32.
    2. حبیبی، جواد و قاسمی صاحبی، حامد (1398). مبانی ردّ دادرس، دانش انتظامی استان سمنان، 9 (31)، 9-25.
    3. دادوند، م (1347). رد قاضی به علت اظهار عقیده قبلی یا توصیه کتبی در قوانین ایران و فرانسه و سوئیس، کانون وکلا، (10 و 11)، 113-138.
    4. داوودی، حسین و شریف‌زاده لاری، محمد (1402). اصل برابری سلاح‌ها، با نگاهی تطبیقی به اسناد و رویۀ قضایی خارجی و آیین دادرسی مدنی ایران، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 14 (33)، 73-96.
    5. فلاح‌نژاد، فاطمه (1401). استقلال و بی‌طرفی قضایی جلوه‌ای از دادرسی منصفانه در جهت حفظ حقوق شهروندی؛ سیستم حقوقی ایران در مقایسه با جمهوری خلق چین، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، 13 (2)، 737-775.
    6. ناجی، مرتضی (1385). بی‌طرفی در دادرسی کیفری، حقوقی دادگستری، (56 و 57)، 29-78.
    7. هریسی‌نژاد، کمال‌الدین (1382). ردّ دادرس در دعاوی کیفری، علامه، (6 و 7)، 221-238.

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    Book

    • Geyh, Ch., (2018). Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Federal Judicial Center Publication.

    Articles

    • Bam, D., (2015). Our Unconstitutional Recusal Procedure, Mississippi Law Journal, 84 (5), 1-57.
    • Geyh, Ch., (2011). Why Judicial Disqualification Matters, Maurer School of Law: Indian University, 30 (4), 672- 732.
    • Hall, J. (2005). The Road Less Traveled: the Third Circuit’s Preservation of Judicial Impartiality in an Imperfect World”, Villanova Law Review ,50 (5), 1265-1284.
    • Hughes, J. and Bryden, Ph., (2016). From Principles to Rules: The Case for Statutory Rules Governing Aspects of Judicial Disqualification, 53,Osgoode HALL Law Journal, 853-897 .
    • Leubsdorf, J., (1987). Theories of Judging and Judge Disqualification, New York University Law Review, 62 (2), 237-292.
    • McKoski, R., (2014). Disqualifying Judges When Their Impartiality Might Reasonably be Questioned: Moving Beyond a Failed Standard, 56, Arizona Law Review, 413-477.
    • Chuks, Matthew Okpaluba and Maloka, Tumo Charles, (2022).The Fundamental Principles of Recusal of a Judge at Common Law: Recent Developments, Obiter, Nelson Mandela University Law Journal, 276-300.
    • Okpaluba, M.Ch. and Maloka, T. Ch., (2022). The Fundamental Principles of Recusal of a Judge at Common Law: Recent Developments, Obiter, Nelson Mandela University Law Journal, 43 (2), 276-300.

    Websites

    • https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/27807
    • https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/u-s-v-arnpriester-885864805
    • https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/228/339/
    • https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/counsel_of_record
    • https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/890/947/387635
    • Code of Conduct for United States Judges, at: https://www.uscourts.­gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies/code-cond­uct-united-states-judges
    • Model Code of Judicial Conduct, at: https://www.americanbar.org/­groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 16, Issue 40
October 2025
Pages 87-114

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics