Research and Development in Public Law

Research and Development in Public Law

Unfiltered Internet Access and Constitutional-Administrative Accountability: The Responsibility of the President and the Supreme Administrative Council

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Mohammad Darvishzadeh
President, Iranian Law and Legal Research Institute; Former Justice, Supreme Court of Iran, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jrpl.2026.734795
Abstract
This article examines the constitutional and administrative ramifications of differential access to unfiltered internet services (“white internet”) within the governance structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Prompted by recent technological developments that disclosed the geographic location of users on the X platform (formerly Twitter), public attention has been drawn to the existence of selective and privileged access to unrestricted internet services for certain officials and social groups, while the general population remains subject to extensive filtering. This phenomenon has transformed a technical disclosure into a broader legal and normative controversy concerning digital inequality and administrative discrimination.The analysis proceeds through four complementary frameworks: digital justice and the credibility gap between official discourse and administrative practice;
constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination; the binding Charter on the Protection of Citizens’ Rights in the Administrative System; and the institutional mandate of the Supreme Administrative Council under Iranian administrative law. It argues that tiered internet access, when tolerated or institutionalized, is incompatible with the principles of equality before the law, impartial administration, and the rule of law. In this context, the President both as the highest executive authority responsible for implementing the Constitution and as Chair of the Supreme Administrative Council bears a heightened obligation to clarify the legal basis of such practices and to ensure their prompt elimination.More broadly, the article conceptualizes digital discrimination as a contemporary form of unequal access to public goods, one that challenges traditional understandings of administrative justice. It contends that technological transparency has created a critical opportunity for institutional accountability: a transparent, reasoned, and effective response by executive authorities would not only address the specific issue of privileged internet access but would also strengthen constitutional resilience, administrative legitimacy, and public trust in the legal order.
Research and Development in Public Law
Volume 2, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
February 2026
Pages 10-20