The time limitation and its impact on weakening individual rights in administrative litigation have fundamental differences from private and criminal law. The lack of explicit law for statute of limitations in administrative litigation and the generalization of private and criminal law interpretations in Iran create a conflict with Article34 of the Constitution.The present study employs a comparative-analytical approach, reviewing laws, judicial procedures, and legal doctrine in Iran and France, raising the following fundamental question: How can statute of limitations in administrative litigation balance legal stability and basic individual rights?It must be noted that procedural complexities and a lack of awareness among citizens regarding legal deadlines have rendered access to a fair trial difficult. The administrative judicial system of France has sought to balance legal stability and protection of individual rights by maintaining a hierarchical structure, consisting of administrative courts and the Council of State, and limited deadlines of two months for objection. Acceptance of valid excuses in France mitigates these limitations.The main difference between civil and administrative litigation lies in their objectives. The former focuses on the stability of private relationships, while the latter concentrates on protecting individual rights against public power.In contrast, the lack of consistent judicial procedure and formal complexities in Iran weaken the right to litigation. Explicit legislations, public education about legal deadlines, acceptance of valid excuses, and strengthening judicial oversight in the Administrative Justice Tribunal, inspired by France, can improve justice and access to litigation, and guarantee a balance between administrative system efficiency and citizen rights.