This article explores the scope and limitations of judges’ freedom of expression, addressing the central question of how legal systems can reconcile judges’ expressive rights with the institutional duties inherent in judicial office. Using a descriptive–analytical methodology and drawing on library based research, the study examines international legal instruments alongside the domestic laws of selected jurisdictions.

The analysis demonstrates that while judges, as citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression, this right is subject to heightened and specific restrictions aimed at preserving core judicial values, including independence, impartiality, and public confidence in the judiciary. Such limitations extend to judicial conduct during proceedings, public speeches, online activities, and aspects of private life. At the same time, the findings indicate a gradual erosion of the doctrine of “judicial silence” in relation to matters such as judicial governance and policies, legal education, legislative deficiencies, and broader issues concerning democracy and the rule of law.

Comparative findings reveal that many legal systems have delineated the boundaries of judicial expression through self regulatory mechanisms, whereas in Iran this approach remains underdeveloped, with existing rules largely state centered and lacking effective enforcement. The article concludes that the adoption of comprehensive domestic standards emphasizing self regulation, the establishment of advisory bodies, and the institutionalization of continuous judicial training can contribute to a more balanced and coherent framework governing judges’ freedom of expression and their professional and institutional responsibilities.