Lawmaking Process

Article 74 of Iran’s Constitution distinguishes government bills, approved by the Council of Ministers before submission, from members’ bills, which require at least fifteen parliamentary sponsors. Article 75 requires financing provisions for members’ proposals or amendments that would reduce public revenue or increase expenditure. These are constitutional entry conditions, rather than evidence that a proposal will secure approval. s1

Specialized committees examine referred proposals and report to the Majles. The parliamentary rules also provide a route for obtaining expert working-group analysis from the Parliamentary Research Center when approved by the lead committee. A research report and a committee report are distinct documents: the former supplies analysis, while the latter records the committee’s position for parliamentary consideration. s2s3

This distinction helps readers interpret headlines announcing that a committee has approved a proposal. Such an announcement identifies progress within parliament; the remaining legal stages must still be checked. The inspected provisions establish committee review and reporting, but do not supply a complete, authenticated account of every procedural timetable applicable at the editorial cutoff. s2

Articles 94–96 require parliamentary legislation to go to the Guardian Council for review against Islamic criteria and the Constitution. The ordinary review period is ten days, with a reasoned extension of up to ten further days. Objections return the text to parliament. Islamic-law compatibility is determined by the Council’s religious jurists; constitutional compatibility involves its full membership. s1

Article 112 provides an expediency mechanism for specified unresolved disagreements between parliament and the Guardian Council. Article 123 assigns the president the signing and implementation-transmission role for legislation after the prescribed legal stages. These provisions explain why a parliamentary vote alone is insufficient evidence that a particular measure has completed the legislative process. s1

A simplified route to constitutional review

The arrows distinguish submission, committee reporting, parliamentary approval, and external review. This simplified route omits special procedures and the expediency mechanism; it does not establish an effective date for any individual law.

For an individual measure, compare the submitted proposal, committee report, parliamentary text, and review outcome. Keep the dates and document titles separate: a report, approval, and returned text describe different stages. This approach follows the institutional distinctions above and avoids treating an intermediate decision as a completed law. Publication and commencement must then be established from the applicable legal records; they have not been verified for a specific enactment here. s1s2