چکیده:
In constitutionalism, many new concepts of public law emerged. The concept of equality before the law was one of these concepts. The emergence of this concept on the horizon of constitutionalist debates indicated changes occurring in the moral foundations of society and was, therefore, a fundamental concept and one of the pillars for establishing the rule of law. Defending this concept and distinguishing between the two distinct concepts of 'equality before the law' and 'equality in the law' was made possible with the help of its jurisprudential precedent. Jurisprudence, as a legal system, recognized such distinctions. Constitutionalist jurists, with the help of these concepts, uncovered fallacies in the concept of equality. However, the dialogue about equality was not merely a legal discussion; rather, society was moving towards experiencing new dimensions of equality, and a debate was underway—prior to the law—to identify new forms of equality, and it was in this midst that fallacies found room to emerge. The attempt to compile the history of these concepts and the conditions under which they appeared is an effort toward compiling the history of public law concepts in Iran. It is a history that legal scholars have neglected and have left to historians who lack the tools to compile these stages of constitutionalist history, which itself is the most important chapter of constitutional law history. The effort to establish this concept began before constitutionalism. However, it was not dedicated to the original Fundamental Charter. During the writing of the Supplementary Fundamental Law, this concept was predicted in Article 8. We will examine the developments of this article until its final form. In the debates of this era, two concepts of equality were flowing, making it necessary to pursue and compile the distinction between them. We will show the constitutionalists' definition of equality before the law and how and on what basis such a precise definition became possible.