Morality Police: Is it the need of the hour?

 A blind man was crossing the road. X, another man with all the good eye vision was also crossing the same road at the same time. X did not bother to escort the blind man to other side of the road. He walked away and crossed the road but blind man met with an accident and died while crossing the road. Is X liable to be prosecuted for not escorting the blind man? Was it his legal duty to escort the blind man and has he violated his legal duty? Or was it his moral duty to escort the blind man and has he violated his moral duty and is he liable for violation of moral duty?What is the duty of morality Police in these situations?

          Similarly, it is the duty of children to obey and respect their parents and elders. But if they do not obey and/or respect their parents and elders, what will be the consequences? It is very common nowadays those children of many who are residing abroad and are not available for obeying them or paying regards to them. So much so, there are instances when parents residing in India left for heavenly aboard, the children could not come to attend their funeral ceremony and other last rites. Such unfortunates arrive in India according to their own convenience. Where is the implementation of moral duties? Are there any moral laws to punish such kids?

Moral necessity:

          In Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, (14 QBD 273) the issue of moral necessity was raised. In this case 3 seamen and a boy were cast away in the storm in the sea in an open boat. The food and water in the boat had finished. In order to save themselves from death due to starvation, as many days had passed without taking food, they decided to kill the boy named Parker and fed on his flesh. 3 days later the 3 survivors were rescued with blood and human flesh under their fingernails. The jury were reluctant to pronounce Dudley and Stephens guilty. They pardoned them, saying that their crime being washed away by inevitable necessity. However, the Jury gave a ‘special verdict’, an unusual judicial procedure by referring the case to a higher court.The Queen’s Bench of 5 judges held that no man has to take another’s life to save his own. They were found guilty of murder and were awarded death sentence but later on their sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. It was held that necessity is no defence for a crime. The crown reduced this penalty to six months imprisonment. Are morals the basis of each and every rule?

          In fact, law and morality are two different subjects and their area of operation is also different. Laws are defined set of rules, whose violations are punishable in accordance with law. Moral laws or rules on the other hand are not well defined and there are no legislative sanctions behind them so as to punish the violator of moral norms. In India we have Police force to prevent the commissions of crimes and to bring the perpetrators to book. Their job is to investigate into violation of laws and file charge sheet in the competent court of law so that they may be tried and punished, if found guilty. But we do not have even the idea of moral Police and moral policing for protection of moral rights of the citizens in our country. This task is at best, done by the parents and elders at their own. There is no state machinery to do this job. There are no judicial decisions available on this aspect either from Supreme Court or any of the High Courts.

Few countries have the concept of moral policing and Iran is one of them. But Iran too has recently abolished the concept of morality Police after wide protests from the general public. The concept of morality Police was introduced in Iran by the hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for spreading the culture of modesty and wearing of Hijab. In September, 2022, one MahsaAmini had died in the custody of morality Police. She was detained in the custody of morality Police for violation of Iran’s female dress code. But the Attorney General of Iran simultaneously declared that the judiciary would still enforce restrictions on social behaviour and scarf regulations are being reviewed. According to media reports, there is no confirmation of closing down the morality Police from the interior ministry which is in-charge of the morality Police. The morality Police has nothing to do with the functioning and orders of judiciary in the entire hierarchy of courts. The primary role of the morality Police related to the enforcement of the laws concerning Iran’s conservative Islamic dress code, which included covering of the body of a female by long, loose clothing and their head with a scarf or hijab. Thus, long black robes and chadors along with a black head covering reaching down the chest have become the norm for the women in Iran and other Muslim countries. In September, 2022 United States of America also imposed sanctions on the morality Police.

 

Law and Morality:

If we compare the relationship between law and morality, it can be safely said that the law deals with and regulates external conduct, whereas the morality deals with and regulates internal conduct. In other words morality appeals to the conscience whereas law acts externally through sanctions imposed by the sovereign authorities. The moral sanctions are, truly speaking, social sanctions or internal sanctions. If external sanctions are introduced in enforcing moral principles, then morality will become an externally working power, which is presently not the case. Morality neither frightens nor commands, but enjoins through an appeal to the conscience. To illustrate, if a man or woman are good, they are because of their love for goodness, and not because of fear of sanctions or punishment. The external sanctions of morality are basically social sanctions, whereas the internal sanctions in morality are in the form of “pleasure” as a result of good actions, or “pain” as a result of the pricking of the conscience because of a bad action/decision.

          The relationship between law and morality can be gauged from three perspectives. The morality may be the basis of law, it may be test of positive law or it may be end of law. In primitive societies all the rules originated from the common source and the sanction behind them was of the same nature. When the state came into existence, those rules which were important from the angle of the society were taken up by the state and their observance was secured by the state by putting punitive sanctions. These rules took the shape of laws. But the set of rules which were very good for the society and the state could not ensure their observance continued in their shape and are known as morals. Law as well as morals originated from same source but in the course of their development they differed from each other. In Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (supra) necessity or moral necessity for preserving one’s life by killing a boy and eating him was held to be not justified.

When natural law theory was prominent in 17^th and 18^th century, it was argued that positive law must confirm to natural law. Morals were the test of laws. According to natural law theory, any law which does not confirm to natural law is to be disobeyed and Government making such law is liable to be overthrown. In modern times this proposition does not hold good.

The moral principles are often considered as to be the end of law. The aim of the law is to secure justice which is based upon morals. According to sociological school of jurisprudence, the law has always a purpose; it is a means to an end, that is, welfare of the society. This view appears to be at par with utilitarian theory of law that immediate end of law is to secure social justice by securing harmony between rival claims and demands.

Law and morality are not the same. Many things may be immoral but not necessarily illegal. Law in majority of cases mirrors morality. Then what is the harm in enforcing moral principles too? In view of this, the decision taken by the Government of Iran, in abolishing morality Police comes under shadow.

 Professor (Dr.) N. K. Bahl