تاملي بر مسيوليت مدني قاضي در اصل 171 قانون اساسي

A Reflection on the Civil Responsibility of Judges under Principle 171 of the Iranian Constitution

تا نيمه اول قرن بيستم قضات در زمره كساني بودند كه مصونيت آنها امري استثنا ناپذير مي‌نمود. به واسطه جنبشهاي فكري به وجود آمده، به تدريج اصل مصونيت مورد انتقاد قرار گرفت و لذا به تدريج اين خواسته در جنبش قانون‌گذاري رسوخ نمود. در اصل يكصد و هفتاد و يكم قانون اساسي جمهوري اسلامي ايران، با الهام گرفتن از متون روايي، نيز به مسيوليت شخصي قضات در صورت تقصير تصريح گرديده است. اما ابهامات ناشي از برخي واژگان به كار گرفته شده در آن موجب گرديد تا اصل مذكور نتواند به هدف خويش ايل آيد.

Seeking for justice is an ideal which has accompanied human beings through their lives and the sense of justice has been made more acute by the development of governments, the spread of the governmental discriminations and the establishment of walls of complete immunity around some positions. This is because it became intolerable that some people to be always employees and to be obligated and absolutely responsible, while others were always the employers who were absolutely immune. Until the first half of the twentieth century, judges were among the persons who always enjoyed immunity. However, because of the intellectual movements that emerged, their immunity came under criticism and this trend was gradually included in legislation. Inspired by the hadiths, principle 171 of the Iranian Constitution clearly provides for the personal responsibility of the judges in case of their fault. But, the ambiguity of some of its terminology caused its failure in achieving its aim.