Referring to Article 96 of the Iranian Constitution, Mossadegh argued that any charges against a sitting or former Prime Minister could only be heard by the Supreme Court rather than by a military tribunal. According to his interpretation of the constitutional framework, the military court lacked legal authority to hear the case, making the entire proceeding unconstitutional.
Mossadegh further argued that accepting the authority of the military court would undermine the constitutional monarchy established after the Constitutional Revolution. He maintained that if the Shah could dismiss and appoint prime ministers without constitutional restrictions and then prosecute them before military courts, the principles of constitutional government would become meaningless. As Mossadegh stated during the hearings, if the king could remove a prime minister at will despite the existence of representative institutions such as the National Consultative Assembly and the Senate, then the country would effectively return to arbitrary royal rule similar to the era of absolute monarchy. His defense therefore extended beyond his personal legal situation and became a broader constitutional argument concerning the limits of executive and royal authority.
