An In-Depth Analysis of the Administrative Court's Rulings on the Ban of "Santouri" and "Rastakhiz": Legal Challenges to Iran's Cinema Licensing System

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 . Associate Prof, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty Of Law And Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Prof, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty Of Law And Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
This study examines the administrative legal challenges surrounding the revocation of screening permits for two Iranian films, "Santouri" (2009) and "Rastakhiz" (2012), despite prior official approval from the Ministry of Culture. Both cases highlight systemic conflicts within Iran’s cinema regulatory framework, particularly the tension between artistic expression and state-imposed "cultural and political necessities." The analysis focuses on the role of the Administrative Justice Court as the primary judicial body addressing such disputes and explores the legal concepts of "legitimate expectation" and "vested rights" within Iranian administrative law.




An In-Depth Analysis of the Administrative Court's Rulings on the Ban …




Methods
This research employs a case study approach, analyzing the legal texts of the Administrative Justice Court’s rulings for "Santouri" and "Rastakhiz," alongside relevant regulatory frameworks, including the 1982 Film Screening Supervision Regulations and its 1985 amendment (Article 4). The methodology includes comparative legal analysis of the two cases under different versions of the Court’s procedural laws (2005 vs. 2012 statutes). The study also considers the socio-political context of artistic censorship in Iran and its impact on judicial outcomes.
 
Findings
The findings reveal critical flaws in Iran’s cinema law, particularly the arbitrary power granted to the Head of the Cinema Organization under Article 4 to revoke screening permits based on vague "cultural and political necessities." This provision violates core administrative law principles, including legality, procedural transparency, and the requirement for reasoned decisions.
The Court’s rulings diverged significantly:

For Santouri, the Court rejected the challenge to the revocation but acknowledged the claim for damages, implicitly recognizing a "vested right" under the 2005 statute.
For Rastakhiz, the Court only confirmed the occurrence of a violation by the administration (under the 2012 statute) but did not award damages.

Despite these rulings, neither film was fully restored to public screening. The study also notes the judiciary’s reluctance to fully embrace "legitimate expectation" as a legal principle, opting instead for narrower interpretations of "vested rights." The research further highlights the chilling effect of regulatory ambiguity on filmmakers, who often avoid litigation due to fears of bureaucratic retaliation and prolonged delays. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that the current legal interpretation fails to adequately distinguish between the 'suspension' and 'permanent revocation' of permits, leaving producers in a state of perpetual uncertainty. While the Ministry’s issuance of a production license should theoretically generate a legitimate expectation of screening, the invocation of Article 4 effectively nullifies this security. The study argues that by awarding damages in the Santouri case rather than enforcing the permit's validity, the judiciary inadvertently validated the executive branch's overreach. This approach transforms the fundamental right of free expression into a transactional liability, effectively allowing the state to pay for the suppression of artistic content and discouraging private investment due to unmitigated regulatory risks.




Volume 18, Issue 1, Spring 2026
 




Conclusion
The cases of Santouri and Rastakhiz underscore the systemic vulnerabilities in Iran’s cinema law, where broad discretionary powers enable arbitrary censorship. While the Administrative Justice Court provided partial relief by acknowledging violations and, in one case, damages, its rulings failed to fully uphold filmmakers' "legitimate expectations" or challenge the constitutionality of Article 4. The study concludes that without substantive legal reforms—including clearer criteria for permit revocation and stronger judicial protection of creative rights—administrative arbitrariness will continue to stifle artistic expression. Ultimately, the fate of these films reflects broader tensions between law, state power, and art in Iran.




An In-Depth Analysis of the Administrative Court's Rulings on the Ban …




 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Agah, V. (2010). Fundamental Rights and Principles of Public Law. Tehran: Jangal. [in Persian]
 Agah, V. (2017). Analysis of the Permit Issuance and Supply System for Cinematic Works in Iranian Administrative Law. Administrative Law, 5(13), pp. 61-83. [in Persian]
Agah, V. (2017). Feasibility of Issuing Art Permits from the Perspective of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Legal Research, 20(77), pp. 293-317. [in Persian]
 Ayoubi, H. (1393 [2014]). Hammer Approach is Detrimental to Cinema, Etemaad Newspaper, Year 13, No. 3295, dated 2015/07/20 (29/4/94), p. 10. [in Persian]
 Baseri, B. & Vizheh, M. (2020). Coexistence of Contractualism and Public Interest in the Context of Administrative Justice. Legal Studies, 13(2), 27-52. [in Persian]
 Behnia, M. (2014). The Principle of Legitimate Expectation: Concept, Foundations, and Methods of Protection in Administrative Law. Tehran: Khorsandi. [in Persian]
 Castiglione, D. (2010). Theoretical Foundations - The Politics of the Constitution, translated by Ahmad Markaz Malmiri, Constitutional Law, 7(13), 126-130. [in Persian]
 Fallahzadeh (2015). Comparative Administrative Law – Procedural Justice. Tehran: Shahr-e Danesh. [in Persian]
 Hadavand, M. & Aghaei Tugh, M. (2010). Specialized Administrative Courts in the Light of Fair Trial Principles (Iran's Law and Comparative Study). Tehran: Khorsandi, First Edition. [in Persian]
 Hadavand, M. & Atrian, F. (2014). The Principle of Necessity in Administrative Acts, Administrative Law, 1(3), 113-145. [in Persian]
 Hadavand, M. & Mashhadi, A. (2012). Principles of Administrative Law in the Light of the Rulings of the Court of Administrative Justice. Tehran: Khorsandi, Second Edition. [in Persian]
 Khaki, M., et al. (2009). The Issue of Resemblance and Reasons for Applying the Term 'Ta'ziyeh, Fine Arts - Performing Arts and Music. 39, 45-54. [in Persian]
 Mashhadi, A. (2012). Certification of Damages Inflicted on the Complainant due to Prevention of Holding an Exhibition..., Administrative Justice Research, 1, 175-186. [in Persian]
 Mashhadi, A. (2013). Reengineering of Collective Decision-Making Institutions in the Executive Branch of Iran and France, Secretariat of the Board for Monitoring the Implementation of the Constitution, Collection of Articles of the First National Conference on Executive Responsibility in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Deputy of Codification and Publication of Laws and Regulations of the Presidency, First Edition, 259-261. [in Persian]
 Mashhadi, A. (2016). Law of Organization and Procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice in the Current Legal Order. Tehran: Khorsandi. [in Persian]
 Naday, A. & Beskabadi, M. (2010). Dramatic Elements in 'Pardeh-khani' as a Multi-Media Art, Fine Arts - Performing Arts and Music, 41, 71-77. [in Persian]
 Nahrini, F. (2011). Retrial at the Discretion of the Head of the Judiciary. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Library, First Edition. [in Persian]
 Nejabatkhah, M. (2011). Law of the Court of Administrative Justice in the Current Legal Order. Tehran: Jangal. [in Persian]
 Petoft, A. & Markaz Malmiri, A. (2016). Concept and Scope of General Principles of Administrative Law - Possibility and Manner of Citation in Judicial Proceedings. Tehran: Judiciary Research Institute. [in Persian]
 Rostami, V.; Ghamami, S.; Salimi, H. (2022). Legitimate Expectation in the Administrative Law System. Public Law Studies, 52(1), 231-249. [in Persian]
 Sahafzadeh, A. (2010). Art, Identity, and Politics of Representation: A Study in the Social History of American Art. Tehran: Bidgol, Second Edition. [in Persian]
 Salehi, H. & Kardouni, N. (2023). Fake News and Disinformation in the Perspective of International Peace and Security: A Look at Ethnic Conflicts. Legal Studies, 15(2), 321-353. [in Persian]
 Schonberg, S. (2008). Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law. Tehran: Mizan. [in Persian]
 Shams, A. (2008). Civil Procedure – Advanced Course. Vol. 1, 17th Edition, Tehran: Drak. [in Persian]
 Vaezi, S. (1401 [2022]). The Place of the Loss Element in Civil Liability of the State, Legal Studies, 15(2), 141-171. [in Persian]
 Vizheh, M. & Hojjati, S. (2021). Guarantee and Protection of Acquired Rights in Iranian Administrative Law and Judicial Procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice, Administrative Law, 8(26), pp. 263-289. [in Persian]
 Vizheh, M. (2011). Theoretical Foundations and Structure of the Legal State. Tehran: Jangal. [in Persian]
 Woehrling, J. (2012). Public Administrations and Judicial Review in European Countries, Translated by Rahimeh Hossein Posht-Dar, Public Law, 9(3), 241. [in Persian]
 Zarei, Mohammad Hossein & Behnia, Masih (2012). Reflection on the Possibility of Applying Legitimate Expectation in the Court of Administrative Justice. Strategy, 20(61), 153-189. [in Persian]
Ziyaie, R.; Norouzi, G. & Jahanbin, S. (2015). Reflection on the Acquired Right in Light of the Rulings of the Court of Administrative Justice, Administrative Law, 2(8), 143-162. [in Persian]
 
Newspapers
 
Ayoubi, H. (2015). A Heavy_Handed Approach is detrimental to
cinema. Etemad Daily, 13(3295), 10.
“And Jannati’s Image in jam_e_Jam” Shargh Daily, 12(2105), (2014), 11.
“Dariush Mehrjuis Cries and Whispers in Conversation with Mehrdad Hojjati: I Made Hamoun with Fear and Trembling.” Shargh Daily, 10(1660), (2013).
“I Did Not Want a ‘Halo of Light’in My Film.” Etemad Daily, 11(2892), (2014), 16.
“Kianoush Ayari’s Untold Stories in Candid Interview with Mehrdad Hojjati: A Certain Group Has Monopolized the Cinema”. Shargh Daily, 10(1644), (2013).
“Rastakhiz Plauged by Screening Woes: Another Film Pulled from Theaters Upon Its Release.” Etemad Daily, 13(3295), (2015), 1_10.
“Screening Permit for the film ‘Rastakhiz’ To be Issued by the end of the week: A Solution to a Problem.” Etemad Daily, 12(3003), 12.
“The Minister of Guidance Spoke of Considering the Concerns of The Ulama: Eulogists Protested at The Ark Mosque”. Etemad daily, 11(2901), (2014), 12.
Head of the Cinema Organization in a Press Briefing: “I'm Not Angry” Is Licensed; ‘Rastakhiz’ Faces No Issues.” Etemad Daily,11(2992), (2014), 6.
“30 Minutes Must Be Cut from ‘Atom Hearts Mother’ Tarane Alidoosti: This Film Has a Surreal Nature”. Etemad Daily, 13(3286), (2015), 10.
 
Laws and Regulations
Citizens' Rights Charter.
Decision Nos.103 to 106, General Board of the court of Administrative Justice (2009).
Directive on The Issuance of Film Exhibition Licenses, No.115037, approved by The Minister of culture (2021).
Directive on The Issuance of Filmmaking Licenses, No.115034 approved by The Minister of Culture (2021).
Guidelines for the Classification of Cinematic Works, approved by the Head of the Cinema Organization (2019).
Judgment No.2320, (2021) Issued by The General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice.
Regulations on Screenplay Review and Issuance of Filmmaking Licenses, Ratified by the Council of Ministers With subsequent amendments (1989).
Regulations on the Supervision of the Exhibition of Films, Slides and Videos and the Issuance of Screening Licenses Approved by the Council of Ministers, With Subsequent amendments (1983).
The Constitution
The Court of Administrative Justice Act (1981).
The Court of Administrative Justice Act (2006).
The Court of Administrative Justice Act (2014).
The Resolution of The Supreme Administrative Council (2011).
Unified Precedent Judgment No.164, Issued by The General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice (1992).
Unified Precedent Judgment No.799, Issued by The General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice (2007)
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics