The General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice, in a ruling dated June 10, 2025, annulled a directive by the Ministry of Health that prohibited general practitioners from performing cosmetic surgeries.
Accordingly, the court has lifted the ban that restricted general practitioners from intervening in cosmetic surgical procedures. This ruling—legally ambiguous in terms of the scope of general practitioners’ competence in the field of cosmetic surgery—has sparked serious concerns regarding the broader right to health for citizens.
The Administrative Court of Justice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, established under Article 173 of the Constitution to investigate public complaints against government officials, agencies, and regulations, has consistently operated under the supervision of Islamic jurists. Its judicial approach has frequently conflicted with international human rights standards. The court has been repeatedly criticized by legal experts, particularly for its stance on oversight of Iran’s ideological vetting system and its deference to security and intelligence bodies.
In several rulings, the court has declared that it lacks jurisdiction over any complaints concerning administrative orders issued by the Supreme Leader. In one controversial decision, the court deemed telephone summonses issued by the Ministry of Intelligence to be legal, thereby effectively legitimizing the extralegal practices of this security agency.
Despite its disregard for fundamental citizen rights in many areas, the court has shown a biased approach in cases involving the interests of powerful institutions such as the Social Security Organization and the Iranian Medical Council.
The court’s latest ruling raises serious legal questions regarding the scope of authority granted to general practitioners, posing direct and alarming implications for the right to health in Iran.