“Leadership Undertakings” is a term used in many ordinary laws and a factor for exceptions in the rules. However, the definition and examples of this term are ambiguous and generally, a broad interpretation is made of it. While it is worthwhile, firstly, a specific criterion should be adopted in defining these institutions in order to make it possible to account for its instances; secondly, the exclusion of these institutions from the inclusion of certain laws would have a certain mechanism. In this paper, with an analytical descriptive approach, we examine this issue firstly, what is the legal nature of the subordinate institutions of leadership? Secondly, what are the criteria used to determine the institutions and the nature of their monitoring? Third, for what legal reason are these institutions included or excluded from some of the laws? What we have found in this article is that, firstly, “confirmation of the verdicts and approvals of an institution” is an acceptable criterion as a subset of leadership, and, second, the exclusion of certain institutions from the rules as such with this argument That the legitimacy of the system derived from the velayat-e faqih is not consistent with the constitutional principle, since the constitution itself provides for equality of leadership, like other people of the nation, to the law, which makes the exception unjustified.
Constitution and system stem from velayat-e-faqih, consistent with the explicit criteria of the constitution regarding the equality of leadership, like other people, the nation does not seem to be against the law, which does not necessarily justify the exception.