Based on the principles of the constitution and legal and religious rules, no authority or entity in any position or situation has the right to issue orders or take actions without legal permission and against legal rules. This obvious and clear rule has been accepted and confirmed by all human societies since ancient times. Even in times of legislative vacuum, the customs and traditions of tribes have been respected and honored as the accepted rule for members of the tribe and clan, except for a period when the whims and opinions of tyrants and rulers were imposed. In fact, the binding nature of the law is derived from legal principles, religious laws, and legal doctrines, and has been accepted in all legal systems and political regimes from ancient times until now.

With these characteristics, it has been a while since we have witnessed a kind of stubbornness and, in other words, ignoring the law in the issue of hijab. Since the head of the Command of Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil went against the laws of the country in a specific action with a unique criterion, to punish women whose hair is visible, society has been caught up in the consequences and consequences of the protests and issues related to the death of Mahsa Amini, creating divisions and conflicts that only add fuel to the fire of society under the pretext of hijab.

Alongside the actions of the Guidance Patrol after the death of Mahsa Amini, we witness voluntary behaviors such as hitting a yogurt container on the head of a lady who is undoubtedly the honor of this land, leading to repeated conflicts in public places, public transportation, subways, parks, universities, banks, etc. Each of these behaviors is a warning sign of a serious incident, and if not approached with reason and logic, we will witness events that are just a small and insignificant part of the incidents and events of the second half of the year 1401.

“Regardless of the potential consequences and disregard for legal rules and observance of citizens’ rights in the issue of hijab, authorities have forgotten that adopting such behaviors is contrary to the principles and criteria defined for the realization of the republican system, including the principle of separation of powers and the definition of limits of authority and delegated powers to each of the pillars of governance. If any of the legal authorities and institutions act beyond their legal authority in imposing duties on citizens, it will mean nothing but a deviation from the law and a violation of the accepted principles in the constitution as a roadmap for governance. In such a case, the first challenge and question that arises is how can the pillars of governance, who have derived their existence from the law, behave contrary to the law?”

Detaining individuals’ vehicles, sending text messages, fining citizens, or detaining and arresting citizens under the pretext of hijab is a clear violation of the law, which we have witnessed repeatedly over the past year, and in recent days, in the name of the “Noor Plan”, we are witnessing the repetition of such actions.

What is the main reason for critics’ criticism of the performance of the police?

“The main template and cause of the mentioned issues are related to the jurisdiction of the Faraja authorities as the relevant judicial authority. The Moral Security Police, as an institution affiliated with Faraja, is authorized by the described law of chastity and hijab, which is not seen in any of the 21 articles of the prescribed regulations regarding the power and authority to arrest individuals or seize their vehicles. It may be argued in response to such criticism that the police and law enforcement, as judicial authorities, have the qualifications and authority to deal with visible crimes, and that dealing with unveiled women is one of those cases. In such a case, it must be said that according to the classification of crimes and punishments in the Islamic Penal Code, the crime mentioned in Article 638 is one of the crimes that carries a level 8 punishment, and therefore, according to the governing laws, the presumption of guilt for individuals accused of such a crime is excluded from imprisonment. Therefore, the implementation of certain judicial restrictions

In addition to these cases, according to Article 237 onwards of the Criminal Procedure Code, which sets the conditions for the detention of criminal defendants, and considering that Article 583 of the Law of Punishments defines criminal responsibility for the arrest of individuals by any law enforcement or government officials, the question arises as to which law justifies recent police actions. While Iran’s criminal laws have specific regulations and restrictions for the detention of individuals and their property, the continuation of current actions by the police and other unauthorized institutions is not only a clear violation of the law and principles of fair trial, but also leads to the violation of citizens’ rights. Such actions not only threaten the scope of citizenship rights, but also hold accountable those who facilitate the violation of these rights.

In the Declaration of Citizenship Rights, there is a section titled “The Right to Freedom and Security of Citizenship,” which states that “the personal and public freedoms of citizens are inviolable. No citizen can be deprived of these freedoms. Restricting these freedoms is only permissible when necessary and in accordance with the law.” It also states that “every citizen has the right to enjoy personal, financial, social, and other similar forms of security. No authority should violate or threaten the security, rights, and legitimate freedoms, as well as the dignity and honor of citizens, in the name of ensuring public security.” Any unlawful actions in the name of ensuring public security, especially those that violate the privacy of individuals, such as sending threatening messages that target the legitimate freedoms of the people as stated in the form of citizenship and fundamental rights, or confiscating personal vehicles, are illegal and therefore prohibited.

With this description, according to the principles of the Constitution, the Charter of Citizens’ Rights, the Document of Judicial Security, and the regulations of criminal procedure, the actions taken under the “Noor Plan” and the Ministry of Interior’s approval regarding dealing with the issue of hijab, are in violation of citizens’ rights and the defined requirements for citizens’ privacy.

Article 13 of the Judicial Security Document defines privacy as follows: “Privacy is the realm of private life that individuals do not expect to be violated, and any intrusion and interference by others, including entry, surveillance, and access without the person’s consent, is prohibited. The physical integrity, residence, workplace, personal information, and communications of individuals, including the private spaces of citizens, are all part of their privacy.” or Article 9 of the Charter of Citizens’ Rights, entitled “Right to Privacy,” states:

»

Article 36: It is the right of every citizen to have their privacy respected. Their place of residence, private spaces, personal belongings, and means of transportation are protected from search and inspection, except by order of the law.

Article 37: Inspection, collection, processing, utilization, and disclosure of letters, both electronic and non-electronic, personal information and data, as well as other postal communications and remote communications such as telephone, fax, wireless, and internet private communications, are prohibited, unless authorized by law.

Article 38: Gathering and publishing private information of citizens is prohibited except with their informed consent or by law.

Article 39: It is the right of citizens to have their personal information protected and safeguarded by government agencies and individuals. The disclosure and sharing of personal information is prohibited and can only be made available to judicial and administrative authorities upon their request. No authority or official has the right to disclose or share personal information of individuals without explicit legal permission.

“And in Article 41 it is stated: Unauthorized audio and visual controls in work environments, public places, shops, and other environments providing services to the public are prohibited.”

Therefore, according to the provisions of the Citizenship Rights Charter, the establishment of regulations that conflict with the defined rights in this law for the people of Iran, or the imposition of punishments and penalties contrary to the provisions of criminal proceedings and the rights of the accused, are null and void and cannot be enforced.