How Taliban’s New Court Rules Further Downgrade Women And Cement Social Control

The Taliban’s emir on January 7 issued a two-point decree formally approving new Criminal Procedural Regulations for Courts, which came into force with immediate effect.

The regulations deepen social divisions by further repressing women’s rights, normalising violence against them and formally categorising society into “free” and “enslaved” persons.

They also introduce a four-tier social hierarchy, grant effective impunity to religious scholars and so-called nobles, and impose harsher punishments on those designated as “lower class.”

According to Rawadari, an Afghan human rights organisation, the group issued a statement and published a copy of the regulation in its original Pashtu language on its website on January 21, stating, “The contents of this document are deeply concerning and stand in clear contradiction to international human rights standards and the fundamental principles of fair trial”.

Since the Taliban takeover in 2021, human rights have suffered heavily in Afghanistan. According to the UN, Afghan women are denied the opportunity to join the workforce, are unable to access services without a male relative while girls are still deprived of their right to education. Taliban authorities have also increased enforcement of repressive restrictions on media outlets, ramped up corporal punishment, and the clampdown on religious freedom and re-education.

However, the latest regulations further cement the state’s grip over individual and society rights.

According to Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, the move codifies an ideological system in which punishment, surveillance, and coercion are core instruments of governance, putting private life, dissent and nonconformity under state and community control.

Authoritarian Mechanism of Control

Under this provision, the nature and severity of punishment for the same offence are determined not by the crime itself, but by the social status of the accused.

For instance, if a religious scholar commits an offence, it warrants only advice; if an elite individual commits the same offence, it results in a court summons and advice.

In contrast, members of the “middle class” face imprisonment, while those from the “lower class” are subjected to imprisonment along with corporal punishment.

The Code has also legitimised slavery by explicitly referring to the term “slave” in several provisions. Article 15 states: “In the case of any crime for which a ‘hadd’ (prescribed punishment) has not been specified, ta’zir (discretionary punishment) is ruled, whether the criminal is free or a slave…”.

Similarly, the code states that the execution of the “hadd” punishment may be carried out by the “Imam”, while the execution of “tazir punishment” may be carried out by the “husband” and the “master”.

The codes therefore compromise human dignity, equality, non-discrimination and the absolute prohibition of slavery as core principles of human rights and peremptory norms of international law.

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, adopted in 1990 by member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, including Afghanistan, affirms inherent human dignity and equal protection under the law. The Taliban’s new regulation contradicts these guarantees and erodes fundamental principles of due process.

As per Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, even within Islamic legal traditions that recognise tazeer as discretionary, it is typically exercised as a function of public authority, subject to limits and judicial oversight, rather than as a licence for private individuals to punish.

What Does It Mean for Women?

The Codes adopt a deeply discriminatory approach to violence against women.

Article 32 provides that a husband will face a sentence of only fifteen days’ imprisonment, and only if the woman can prove before a judge that she was beaten with a stick and suffered serious injuries such as “a wound or bodily bruising”.

Other forms of physical violence, as well as psychological and sexual violence against women, are neither explicitly prohibited nor meaningfully addressed in the document.

Similarly, Article 34 criminalises women who leave their marital home without their husband’s permission. It states that if a woman repeatedly goes to her father’s house or that of other relatives and does not return despite her husband’s request, she, along with any family member or relative who prevents her return, will be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

This provision is particularly alarming for women who seek refuge with their families to escape domestic violence or maltreatment.

Article 58 mandates that “The judge shall sentence an apostate woman, for the purpose of compelling her to accept Islam, to life imprisonment, accompanied by ten lashes every three days.” The provision applies only to women, explicitly institutionalizing gender-based punishment for religious belief.

Taken together, these provisions significantly heighten the risk of normalising, intensifying and institutionalising violence against women.

Under the new Taliban’s legal framework, violence against women is treated as less serious than cruelty to animals, with Article 70 criminalising forcing animals or birds to fight and prescribing a sentence of five months’ imprisonment for such acts.

The unequal penalties—where cruelty to animals attracts harsher punishment than serious violence against women—stand in clear contradiction to the Cairo Declaration’s affirmation of inherent human dignity. From an Islamic ethical standpoint, although mistreatment of animals is rightly condemned, human dignity holds a higher moral and legal standing, As per Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.

What Does It Mean for Children?

The Code also fails to provide adequate protection to children.

Article 30 prohibits only limited forms of physical violence by teachers—specifically acts resulting in “bone fracture”, “torn skin” or “bodily bruising”—while remaining silent on other forms of physical abuse, as well as psychological and sexual violence.

Article 48 further permits violence against children by allowing a father to punish his 10-year-old son if the child is deemed to be acting against his own interests, such as by abandoning prayer or for other unspecified reasons.

Speech and Silence Criminalised by Design

The Regulation introduces a framework that deliberately targets dissent, expression and even passivity, replacing personal autonomy with enforced surveillance and punishment. Furthermore, it punishes awareness and the failure to report, converting everyday social ties into mechanisms of enforcement, compelling families, neighbours, colleagues and communities to monitor and police one another.

Under Article 18, criticism of the Taliban’s highest authority attracts severe penalties, effectively erasing any scope for political dissent or accountability at the top.

“A person who insults the Imam is deemed a criminal; the judge shall sentence him, in addition to 39 lashes, to one year of imprisonment,” the Clause states.

Restrictions on free expression are reinforced by Article 23(2), which states, “If a person insults high-ranking Emirate personnel, the judge shall sentence him, in addition to twenty 20 lashes, to six months of imprisonment.”

The Regulation also extends criminal liability to silence and inaction. Article 24 provides, “If a person witnesses or has knowledge of subversive gatherings or consultations of opponents of the system, but neither personally takes action against them nor informs the relevant Emirate authorities, such witnessing or knowledgeable person shall be deemed a criminal; the judge shall sentence him to two years of imprisonment.”

(With inputs from Rawadari and Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security)