An Analysis of the Criminalization of Disruption of Public Order under Iranian Criminal Law and an Assessment of the Adequacy and Clarity of the Existing Legislative Framework

Abstract

Public order constitutes a major collective interest protected by criminal law; however, its relative and flexible nature creates significant challenges for criminalization in terms of legality, legislative clarity, and foreseeability. This study analyzes the criminalization of disruption of public order under Iranian criminal law and evaluates the adequacy and clarity of the existing legislative framework, with particular emphasis on Article 618 of Book Five of the Islamic Penal Code. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical method based on the examination of criminal legislation and relevant legal literature. The findings demonstrate that Article 618 employs a combined legislative model in which uproar and commotion, unconventional conduct, and assault against individuals become punishable only when they result in disruption of public order, comfort, or tranquility, or prevent people from conducting their business. Accordingly, the offense is result-based, and conduct that is merely unconventional, socially undesirable, or contrary to prevailing norms is insufficient for its realization. Requiring an actual public consequence represents one of the principal strengths of the legislative structure and substantially limits the scope of criminal liability. Nevertheless, expressions such as “unconventional conduct,” “public comfort,” and “public tranquility” lack sufficiently clear statutory criteria, while the legislature has not precisely specified the required seriousness of the disturbance, the public scope of its effects, or the boundary between ordinary social disorder and criminal disruption of public order. Furthermore, the mental element must be interpreted consistently with the result-based nature of the offense, requiring not only intentional conduct but also intent regarding, or awareness of, the disruptive consequence. The study concludes that criminal protection of public order is justifiable in principle, but Article 618 requires legislative refinement to enhance legal certainty and prevent expansive interpretation. Clarifying unconventional conduct, establishing more objective criteria for significant disruption, emphasizing the public character of the result, and more clearly distinguishing criminal disruption from merely unconventional behavior constitute the principal directions for reform.