One of the most fundamental and prominent indicators of civil societies is the reliance on “law” in the administration of affairs, relationships, and personal and social interactions—a principle often referred to as the rule of law. Accordingly, in the relationship between the government and citizens, as well as among citizens themselves, it is the law that serves as the sole criterion for determining situations and clarifying obligations. Here, the term “law” is used in its broad sense and refers to any legal rule enacted by a competent authority and in accordance with legal procedures (including laws passed by Parliament or government regulations).

In Iran’s legal system, the enactment of law—in its specific sense—is the exclusive domain of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament), which is the only body authorized to pass legislation. According to Article 58 of the Constitution: “The legislative power is exercised through the Islamic Consultative Assembly, which consists of representatives elected by the people. Its enactments, after going through the procedures outlined in subsequent articles, are conveyed to the executive and judiciary branches for implementation.” Furthermore, under Article 85 of the Constitution, this authority is non-delegable and cannot be transferred to other bodies or institutions, not even by Parliament itself, which is not allowed to delegate its legislative power—even on specific topics or issues—to any person or entity. However, two exceptions are provided in this article: one pertains to the authorization for parliamentary committees to pass experimental and temporary laws, and the other allows for the permanent approval of the statutes of organizations, companies, and government-related institutions by the relevant committees or the government. Since these permissions are exceptional in nature, they cannot be extended or applied to similar cases.

Similarly, in the case of regulations, which rank below laws in the hierarchy of norms, the same principle applies: a regulation is valid and enforceable only if enacted or signed by an authorized body or official. Article 138 of the Constitution states: “In addition to cases where the Council of Ministers or a specific minister is assigned to draft the executive regulations of laws, the Council of Ministers has the right to issue decrees and regulations for administrative purposes, the implementation of laws, and the organization of administrative bodies. Each minister, within the scope of their duties and the resolutions of the Council of Ministers, also has the right to issue regulations and directives. However, the content of these regulations must not contradict the text and spirit of the laws.” Therefore, in the legal order established by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, only institutions and officials recognized by law and, consequently, endowed with legal legitimacy, may legislate or regulate.

With this being said, in practice, during nearly 46 years of the implementation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, various extra-legal entities and institutions have emerged. These bodies, without possessing a clear status or valid legal authority, have enacted rules that are difficult to classify as valid legal rules according to legal standards—or even the criteria established in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unfortunately, these quasi-laws have significantly impacted the personal and social lives of citizens and have, in many instances, deprived them of their fundamental and primary rights.

The Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution and the Supreme Council of Cyberspace are two clear examples of such extra-legal institutions. The so-called “resolutions” issued by these councils are not subject to oversight by the Guardian Council (as is the case with parliamentary enactments), nor are they reviewed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (as is the case with resolutions by the Council of Ministers). In other words, no legal mechanism exists to prevent these quasi-legislative bodies from issuing resolutions that contradict the Constitution or ordinary laws. Consequently, these institutions, operating beyond legal oversight, may infringe upon or endanger the fundamental rights and freedoms of the nation, as they have done in numerous instances. Moreover, it is not possible to lodge complaints or objections to the resolutions of these councils with the Administrative Court of Justice.

According to Note 2 of Article 12 of the Law on the Administrative Court of Justice, which was added on May 1, 2023 (10 Ordibehesht 1402), resolutions by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution and the Supreme Council of Cyberspace are explicitly deemed non-justiciable by the Administrative Court of Justice.

In addition to the necessity of enacting legal rules by competent authorities, public awareness of these rules is another essential condition for their applicability to citizens. Such awareness is typically achieved through the publication of legal texts in the Official Gazette or similar platforms. The commencement of a legal rule’s enforceability depends on the lapse of a legally prescribed period after its publication.

In Iran’s legal system, Article 3 of the Civil Code designates the Official Gazette for publishing laws. This Gazette, a governmental institution currently under the judiciary’s jurisdiction, was established on October 17, 1910 (25 Mehr 1289) under the Law on the Establishment of the Official Gazette, which stipulates: “Under the supervision and oversight of the Ministry of Interior, an Official Gazette shall be established in the capital at government expense, which shall include royal decrees, ministerial orders, grants and appointments, enacted laws, detailed accounts of parliamentary sessions, and other official government matters.”

According to Article 2 of the Civil Code: “Laws shall be enforceable across the entire country 15 days after publication, unless a specific timeline for implementation is stipulated in the law itself.” As such, the fundamental condition for the enforceability of “laws” is their publication in the Official Gazette to ensure public awareness and accessibility.

However, Note 1 of Article 11 of the Internal Regulations of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace departs from these fundamental legal principles, including the principle of legal transparency, by stipulating: “Only those resolutions of the Supreme Council deemed necessary for public dissemination by the Secretary shall be submitted to the Official Gazette for publication.” As a result, the publication of resolutions by the Supreme Council of Cyberspace—resolutions that directly affect the daily lives of citizens and their rights and freedoms in cyberspace—is subject to the discretion of a governmental official.

In recent instances, such as the so-called lifting of restrictions on Google Play and WhatsApp, this lack of transparency became apparent. On December 25, 2024 (4 Dey 1403), a member of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace announced that this unblocking was based on a 32-point resolution by the council. However, since this resolution was not officially published, its contents remain unknown.

To conclude, as long as entities like the Supreme Council of Cyberspace legislate in place of Parliament and other legal bodies elected by the majority vote of the people, and as long as such bodies, operating beyond legal oversight, impose opaque and behind-the-scenes decisions under the guise of resolutions, expecting or hoping for improvement in the current chaotic situation remains unrealistic and naïve.