The annual cap on notary fees, established by Note 7 of Circular No. 99/4352 (dated 2020/04/06) by the Registration Organization, aimed to prevent document concentration. However, the Guardian Council, in Opinion No. 44903/102 (dated 2025/02/03), declared its application un-Islamic in cases where it deprives citizens of access to adequate notary services. This ruling provided the basis for the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice to invalidate the regulation (Judgment No. 140431390000580693, dated 2025/05/27). Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study examines the jurisprudential and legal grounds for invalidation and the implications of the Guardian Council’s opinion on the regulatory authority of administrative bodies. Findings reveal that the jurisprudential argument rests on the dual protection of the right to choice and access to quality services, and the prohibition of restricting legitimate income, based on the principles of Respect for Muslim Practice, Original Permissibility (Ibaha), and the Sharia prohibition of declaring the lawful as forbidden. From an administrative law perspective, the numerical capping involves a flawed perception of justice (formal equality instead of distributive justice), the deprivation of the right to legitimate benefit (Article 959, Civil Code), inconsistency with the notary’s obligation to execute documents (Article 30, Notary Law), and exceeding administrative authority in enacting mandatory rules (Articles 58, 71, and 72, Constitution). The results conclude that while invalidation was essential for the rule of law, the solution lies in implementing fair, law-based, and Sharia-compliant caps to balance public rights with the notary profession without infringing upon citizens’ freedom of will.