judicial independence

Judicial system is a reference which should take an action for general public rights realization and eliminate legal abnormalities by issuing various decrees, and its judges can bring powerful rulers to justice because of having committed crimes; so if they won’t have enough autonomy, they can’t have a fair judgments. One of the conditions of judicial independence principle objectification, is independence of judicial system set from other organs of government, by means of powers separation principle. The first goal of powers separation, is assigning specialized tasks of government to separate organs and systems consists of experts. For this purpose, judicial system is responsible for resolving claims and disputes as well as criminal penalties and prosecuted. One of the intended principles is providing judicial independence and also general jurisdiction of judicial system in order to addressing disputes and committed crimes in the community level. The third principle of fundamental principles is judicial independence that has also been mentioned. But unfortunately this issue have been violated in laws of the Islamic Republic Iran and United States of America due to the existence of quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies. Moreover, existence of special court for the clergy in Iran is a clear violation of judicial independence. Principle of judicial branch separation from the other powers of government is the first step in organizational independence of the judicial system and can be found in multiple principles of the fundamental laws of both countries. However, despite the recognition of separation powers principle and respect independence for judicial system, again we see interference of powers and other institutions in functions of judicial system in both countries. In addition to that, in order to provide judicial independence in desirable and intended means of that, providing independence and impartiality of judge's also is required. This means that judges ruled out only with regard to the law, justice and equity, and do not pay any attention to the orders and wishes of others, and finally from this independently behavior, won’t fear from dismissal, downgrading the status and change the place of employment and jeopardizing their positions. This independence must be holistic, which means that judges must be independent not only within the judicial branch, and no person or authority shall not intervene in their votes and their decisions, but also outside the judicial branch and from no authority and office or other governmental entity and even public interest and thought should not be the slightest effect on his normal and impartial judgment, but rather should always consider justice, equity, law and human rights. In addition to these two concepts, magistrate also should observed impartiality within their and has the internal autonomy.

The relationship between increased budget allocations to the judiciary and improvements in judicial behavior and performance has gained prominence in recent years. However, given the limited nature of resources, extensive funding for the justice system often comes at the expense of other societal needs. Thus, optimizing resource allocation within the judiciary is essential. This optimization requires identifying challenges specific to the judicial system of the Islamic Republic of Iran and examining the experiences of other nations. This article argues that effective governance demands budget transparency, and arbitrary resource allocation—without considering medium- and long-term planning—presents significant challenges. Despite the implementation of six medium-term plans since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, a coherent link between these plans and the budgetary process remains elusive in Iran. This disconnect can be partly attributed to the influence of bargaining dynamics on budget allocation. Additional challenges include a lack of fiscal discipline, an excessive reliance on incremental budgeting, inadequate use of an efficient accounting system, and ineffective oversight by other branches of government regarding the financial performance of the judiciary. Experiences from various countries indicate that when budgeting systems resist reform, a viable solution involves identifying and strengthening components within the existing institutional framework that enhance efficiency. Given that implementing Performance Budgeting within the judiciary may be impractical, a more effective approach may involve adhering to traditional budgeting methods. Ultimately, enhancing budget transparency and facilitating public access to budgetary information can empower citizens, promote government accountability, and yield mutual benefits.