Court Places Illegal Ban on Zoroastrian from Yazd City Council

Iran’s powerful body the Guardian Council has intensified efforts to discriminate against religious minorities, removing a elected city official from his post. 

On September 2, the Iranian Students’ News Agency reported [Persian link] that Sepanta Niknam, a Zoroastrian member of Yazd City Council, would no longer be allowed to carry out his activities as city councillor. “According to Islamic jurists in the Guardian Council, membership of a Zoroastrian in Yazd City Council is against sharia laws,” said the Guardian Council’s spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei. On September 4, Iranian media reported that the Court of Administrative Justice had issued a ruling forbidding Sepanta Niknam from continuing his work at the council.

The ban was actually announced in April, a month before local elections, which took place on May 19, the same day as the presidential election. On April 18, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who chairs both the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts, issued a directive demanding that non-Muslims be disqualified from running in the forthcoming local elections in localities where the majority of the population are Muslim. He also announced that Article 26 of the City and Village Election Law was “against sharia.”

Article 26 of the law specifically refers to recognized religious minorities, clearly stipulating that people who follow “their own faith...instead of Islam” are entitled to run for public office. But instead, Jannati asserted that non-Muslim candidates cannot run in areas where Muslims make up the majority of the population.

Considering that in all Iranian cities, large or small, the majority of residents are Muslims, the Guardian Council directive effectively banned all non-Muslims from running for city council positions.

To justify the verdict, the Islamic jurists of the Guardian Council quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, during a meeting with members of the Iranian parliament on October 4, 1979. “First, the [candidates] must be Muslims,” he said. “Second, they must be believers in the movement [the Islamic Revolution]. They must be honest in their work, must have true faith, must be committed to the decrees of Islam and must not have a criminal record...Of course, those who are non-Muslims can have their own councils.”

The laws governing city and village councils were passed in 1996, years after Khomeini died, and they were amended twice, in 2007 and 2013. So the Guardian Council had three opportunities to reject Article 26 as being “against sharia,” but it chose not to do so. Since 1996, a number of non-Muslims have been elected to city councils around the country and have been able to complete their terms.

Follow the Law, Not the Guardian Council

Jannati’s announcement in April led to protests from a number of representatives to the parliament, which by law, manages and oversees local council elections. On April 19, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani rejected [Persian link] Jannati’s directive and ordered the election supervisory boards to follow “the letter of the law” — meaning that non-Muslim candidates must not be disqualified solely on the basis of their faith. The supervisory boards followed Larijani’s directive and ignored the opinion of the Guardian Council. No non-Muslim was disqualified because of his or her religion. 

But then, Ali Asghar Bagheri, a candidate who lost in Yazd’s city council election, lodged a complaint with the Court of Administrative Justice — and that is when the court suspended Sepanta Niknam from the council. The board supervising city council elections in Yazd challenged the court and re-qualified Niknam to serve in the council.

Has Sharia Changed?

To justify its directive, the Guardian Council cited Article 19 of the parliamentary bylaws. This article declares that, based on Article 4 of the Islamic Republic Constitution, the Guardian Council can declare that laws and rules are “contrary to sharia” if the majority of the Islamic jurists in the council vote to endorse the declaration. It also says that such a provision does not fall within the time limitations imposed by Article 94 of the constitution, which proclaims that “all legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly must be sent to the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council must review it within a maximum of 10 days of its receipt with a view to ensuring its compatibility with the criteria of Islam and the Constitution.”

But Article 19 of the parliamentary bylaws does not appear to apply to laws that the Guardian Council has already found to be legitimate. As stated above, the Guardian Council had three chances to reject the objectionable provision in the local councils’ election law and did not take action. So now, the question is this: how can the Guardian Council reject a law on the grounds of it being incompatible with sharia that the council itself has already approved? Can sharia laws be subject to change? Or is it just now the Guardian Council has discovered that it missed something?

From a constitutional point of view, Article 19 of the parliamentary bylaws itself is unconstitutional. Article 94 of the constitution clearly states that the Guardian Council has 10 days to decide whether a law conforms to sharia requirements or not, while Article 19 states that the Guardian Council is not bound by this provision in the constitution! How can a parliamentary law override the clear provisions of the constitution?

The other significant point is that the Guardian Council cites Ayatollah Khomeini’s statements to justify its directive when the sources of Islamic jurisprudence are quite clear and established. The views of Ayatollah Khomeini, whether they support or go against a directive, cannot be used as the single criteria for deciding whether something is contrary to sharia or not.

What is more, under Islamic jurisprudence, certain religious minorities are recognized as being legitimate. Even Article 14 of the constitution clearly specifies that “in accordance with the sacred [Koranic] verse— ‘God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes’ [60:8] — the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.” This article clearly shows that the Guardian Council’s directive itself is unconstitutional and the council cannot annul a law that it has passed and that has already been in force.

Doubtful Jurisdiction 

The legitimacy of the Court of Administrative Justice’s ruling is also seriously questionable, because it is doubtful that qualifying candidates actually fall within the jurisdiction of this court. According to the local council’s election laws, it is the supervisory boards that decide on the qualification of candidates, and their decisions are subject to review by a supreme supervisory board. So the Court of Administrative Justice is not qualified to disqualify Zoroastrian Sepanta Niknam, who had been qualified by the election board.

If the Court of Administrative Justice becomes involved in the business of qualifying candidates for local council elections, then it must also take on the responsibility of reviewing all cases, including complaints by candidates who have been disqualified. So far, it has not done this, and the court has not qualified or disqualified candidates.

But an equally important point is that Sepanta Niknam has been qualified and was elected by the people. The Court of Administrative Justice’s verdict is decidedly a willful neglect of the people’s vote. This verdict violates the principle of people’s right to manage their affairs. Under the constitution, people have the right to freely elect their representatives and share in the running of the country.

The ruling by the Court of Administrative Justice ignores both the people’s vote for Sepanta Niknam and his rights as a citizen.