<![CDATA[This article examines how Saudi Arabia’s 2022 Personal Status Law allocates judicial authority in inheritance disputes. It argues that codification neither abolishes discretion nor uniformly converts substantive justice into procedural formalism. A doctrinal method interprets selected provisions on estate identification, succession eligibility, fixed shares, preservation, negotiated withdrawal, and residual Sharia reference. The statutory analysis is supplemented by two identifiable Saudi judgments published before codification and a focused comparison with Indonesian succession provisions and a 2024 Pakistani judgment. The findings distinguish legislative selection of distributive rules from judicial determination of facts, expressly delegated evaluations, and supplementary reasoning under article 251. Articles 238–240 prescribe protective measures, whereas article 244 expressly entrusts the court with a context-sensitive assessment of the time needed to ascertain an estate. Maqāṣid al-sharīʿah is reconstructed as a framework for evaluating authorized choices, preserving entitlement, and requiring reasons, rather than a general permission to alter inheritance fractions. The article proposes a model of bounded purposive discretion requiring identification of legal authority, relevant facts, permissible alternatives, and safeguards for affected parties. Published cases demonstrate the practical importance of asset verification, protection of absent heirs and minors, and appellate correction. Because the Saudi cases predate the statute, they establish an institutional baseline rather than prove post-2022 effects. The contribution is a differentiated account of where judicial discretion survives, how it is constrained, and how its exercise can be evaluated.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
