The rule of law, one of the most important components and characteristics of modern societies, is considered. It is under the rule of law that the institutions of power, arising from the will of the public, are responsible for enforcing laws and are protected by this progressive principle. These institutions are limited and confined within the cage of the law, and the possibility of abuse of power and violation of citizens’ rights under the pretext of enforcing the law is taken away from them. One of the important results of the rule of law in the field of public law – which is the area of regulating the relationship between government and citizens – is the principle of “lack of competence”. This principle, in simple terms, means that the institutions exercising public power have no authority to take any action except what is provided for them by the law. In other words, the power apparatus and its agents require a legal permit for any action, and without such a permit, they are not authorized to implement any decision.

The effects of this principle can also be observed and traced in the legal system of Iran. Various laws that enumerate the powers and authorities of different institutions and forces, are themselves indicative of the limited jurisdiction of these bodies and officials within the boundaries set by the law. In addition, legal provisions that declare the invalidity of decisions made outside of their legal jurisdiction by natural and legal persons, are also derived from the fundamental principle of “incompetence”. For example, Article 170 of the Constitution states: “Judges of the courts are obliged to refrain from enforcing government resolutions and regulations that are contrary to Islamic laws or exceed the powers of the executive branch, and anyone can request the annulment of such regulations from the Administrative Justice Court.” The Administrative Justice Court Law also outlines the procedures for objections and complaints against decisions made by incompetent authorities and institutions. For instance, Article 12, paragraph 1 of this law states: “Investigating complaints, grievances, and objections of natural or legal

However, it is unfortunate to see that the law enforcement command of the Islamic Republic (FARAJA), which should logically and rationally be a prominent example of adherence to the law and action within the framework of various legal authorities, has taken the initiative and taken actions that show no indication of delegation of such matters to FARAJA in any law. The recent example of these extra-legal decisions by FARAJA is the announcement of the implementation of a dubious plan called “Project Noor”. This plan, which has been implemented on citizens, especially women and girls of Iran, since the beginning of this year, is a clear example of the law enforcement exceeding its limited and enumerated legal authorities. FARAJA, whose forces are considered “general judicial officers” under Article 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and according to Article 28 of the same law, “…only act under the supervision and instructions of the prosecutor in discovering crimes, preserving evidence and signs, collecting evidence of the

The implementation of this plan, despite all the legal ambiguities and flaws, is being announced in line with the law of chastity and hijab, while at the time of writing this text, the bill known as the law of chastity and hijab has not yet been finally approved by the Guardian Council, has not been published in the official newspaper, and the legal deadline for its enforcement (fifteen days after its publication in the official newspaper) has not passed, and as a result, the law has not covered its unsuitable figure. Therefore, while in the current legal system, the only legal provision regarding the criminalization of not observing the religious hijab is the provision of paragraph 638 of the Islamic Penal Code, approved in 1996, which states: “Women who appear in public places and in the public eye without observing the religious hijab will be sentenced to imprisonment from ten days to two months or a fine of fifty thousand to five hundred thousand rials”, it

The statements of senior commanders of Faraja also indicate their lack of knowledge and understanding of their legal authority over the organization under their command. For example, Sardar Abbas Ali Mohammadian, the commander of Tehran’s law enforcement, stated in an interview at the beginning of implementing this plan that the police act upon the request of the faithful and religious people of our country and their expectations from the Islamic society, and deal with individuals who promote social abnormalities such as immodesty. Regardless of the fact that the qualities of faith and religiosity are internal matters that cannot be measured or tested, the fundamental question is which legal decree has assigned Faraja the duty to discover the will of the faithful and religious people and implement it through this plan? If the people mentioned by the commander have any will, they can turn it into a law through their representatives in the Islamic Consultative Assembly and then Faraja, as the chief prosecutor and under the supervision and instructions of the judicial authority, will act upon this