The establishment of criminal matters is a topic that has attracted the attention of scholars in the literature of jurisprudence and law, with each approaching it from a specific angle. One of the issues under consideration is whether it is necessary to refer to the ruler in these matters. The present study attempts to answer the question: What is the view of contemporary jurists regarding the necessity or lack thereof in referring to the ruler in hudud?

The outcome of this writing is that, generally, whether it is necessary or not to refer to the ruler in criminal matters depends on what assumption a jurist holds during the era of occultation. Is it permissible, according to them, to implement Islamic punishments only during the presence of an infallible Imam (peace be upon him) and with his permission, or can they also be established and executed during the era of occultation? If a jurist believes that implementing hudud is only permissible during the presence of an infallible Imam and with his permission, then there remains no room for discussing the necessity of referring to a ruler for establishing hudud during occultation.

Some jurists argue against its necessity; however, most jurists, especially contemporary ones, believe in the necessity of referring to a ruler in criminal matters. This research specifically discusses the views of prominent contemporary jurists who emphasize based on various transmitted and rational evidence that referring to a ruler is necessary and mention it as a fatwa and obligation.