Article 156 of the Constitution explicitly entrusts the “revival of public rights” to the Judiciary; however, conceptual ambiguity and the lack of precise delineation of competent authorities have resulted in judicial inconsistency and inefficiency in safeguarding rights with indeterminate beneficiaries. Raising the question that “In the Iranian legal system, in which judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities, and with what modalities, are public rights actionable?”, this research critically assesses the jurisdictional competence of these institutions. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach, this study comprehensively scrutinizes existing legal capacities and judicial practice. The findings indicate that due to their broad scope, public rights are actionable across all aforementioned authorities; however, the levels of competence vary. While quasi-judicial authorities play a limited role due to their adversarial nature and lack of ex officio initiative, the Court of Administrative Justice has evolved into the most effective administrative authority following recent legislative developments, the establishment of the “Deputy for Public Rights”, and the recognition of the standing of NGOs. Furthermore, criminal and civil courts act as complementary arms, despite challenges regarding legal invocation. Consequently, the Iranian procedural system, by accepting diverse jurisdictions, is transitioning from purely individual-centric litigation toward the acceptance of public interest litigation within a multi-layered context.