Accordingly, this study, employing a descriptive analytical method, seeks to examine the constitutional foundations of the Guardian Council’s authority to identify fundamental amendments to government bills and to explore an appropriate framework for constructive interaction among the Council, the executive branch, and the legislature. The findings indicate that the rationale underlying Article 74 of the Constitution rests on the principle that the government’s legislative initiative, presented in the form of bills, must not undergo fundamental transformations during parliamentary deliberations that alter its essential character or original purpose. The Guardian Council’s current practice of reviewing such substantial changes accords with the logic of Article 74, which distinguishes between legislative initiatives originating in government bills and those introduced through parliamentary proposals, and remains consistent with constitutional and legal principles. Nonetheless, while preserving its supervisory role and independence in constitutional decision making, the Guardian Council should strengthen coordination with the executive branch and seek the government’s advisory opinion on whether parliamentary amendments constitute major changes to the submitted bill. Such consultation can facilitate a clearer assessment of the government’s legislative intentions and promote constructive institutional cooperation within the constitutional framework. Furthermore, when the government explicitly confirms its acceptance of modifications introduced by Parliament, this approval may be interpreted as a renewed exercise of legislative initiative, thereby resolving the constitutional objection arising under Article 74. This approach reconciles constitutional supervision with effective legislative deliberation while respecting the distinct responsibilities of the institutions involved in the lawmaking process as a whole.