The Objectionable Rule
In the rule under appeal, a short-term suspension penalty of six months is provided for law enforcement personnel who say or write words or articles that are negatively critical of the actions or actions of their supervisor or superiors inside or outside the post.
Application Justification
As a summary of the application, guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and criticism of other individuals in society, such as law enforcement personnel -law enforcement services provided to prevent damage to the orderly functioning of that – you should take advantage of the limit and the scope of the rule that are not specific to any criticism of a society that prohibits mandatory as it is not a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression to meet the needs brought by stating that it was suggested that the rule is unconstitutional.
Evaluation of the Court
Article 26 of the Constitution. the main function of the article is to protect the freedom of expression of all segments of society without any distinction. Public officials, including law enforcement personnel, enjoy freedom of expression, as do all other members of society.
Chief or higher, subject to appeal in the task rule that the act or process of speaking or writing of a critical nature on the negative disciplinary actions is a limitation to freedom of expression by allowing law enforcement personnel.
Article 13 of the Constitution. the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression in accordance with the article must be made by law, comply with the reasons for the restriction provided for in the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic order of society and the principle of proportionality.
Discipline and hierarchical order that is in the upper position at the forefront of law enforcement or action or in the process supervisor to address the task of those who do, their staff authority over the defense of the institution of the order of nature, and hence is a cause deterioration of the functioning of the service that could be stated opinion or adverse opinion matters to the achievement of certain security restrictions and prohibitions of the community in terms of a failure to provide a challenge to any weakness in policing and does not carry the requirement.
However, this does not mean that hierarchical superiors and superiors cannot be criticized in any way. Indeed, in the negative direction, although, objectively speaking, that does not have any negative effects on the authority of the parent or the supervisor, by contrast, which may affect the functioning of the service or able to contribute to the positive aspects of secure industrial peace, constructive, reasonable, and affordable for the general nature of service to be able to say it is possible penalising such criticisms in the face of criticism in a democratic society, it is clear that the mandatory will serve to meet the needs of society.
In the task rule was brought in to address the act or process of negative criticism chief or higher undermine the authority of the institution to the hierarchical order of the functioning or element does not move, or damaging the overall service concept allows you to be punished, regardless of whether any reasonable affordable nature of criticism. In this respect, it has been concluded that the restriction imposed on freedom of expression by the rule is not in accordance with the requirements of the democratic social order.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution on the grounds described and has been annulled.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here