TDS Desk:

The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has raised alarm over provisions in the Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draft, warning that vague offences, sweeping content-blocking powers and heavy penalties could be used against journalists, critics and political dissent.

HRSS is the latest among several rights and civil society groups — including Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) and Tech Global Institute — to raise concerns over the Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draft.

The rights group is particularly raising concerns about its provisions governing online expression. BLAST raised similar concerns this week, while TIB and Tech Global Institute have also called for major changes to the proposed law.

In a statement on Thursday, HRSS said laws were necessary to tackle cybercrime, online harassment, blackmail, sextortion, revenge pornography, digital child abuse, identity theft, fraud and unauthorised access.

But such legislation, it said, must not undermine constitutional rights, freedom of expression, media freedom, privacy, access to justice or the right to dissent.

HRSS said the Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draft contains some positive provisions but also includes “ambiguous, overly broad and repressive” clauses that could create serious human rights risks.

“HRSS fears that if the draft is enacted in its current form, it could become a new legal tool for controlling expression, harassing journalists and suppressing dissent rather than combating cybercrime,” the statement said.

The group pointed to Bangladesh’s experience with the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006, Digital Security Act, 2018, and Cyber Security Act, 2023, saying vaguely worded provisions under previous laws had faced allegations of being used against journalists, writers, students, political activists, rights defenders and ordinary citizens.

“The reintroduction of previously controversial provisions in the current amendment draft raises concerns that the reform process could be reversed,” HRSS said.

Rumours, misinformation and defamation

HRSS singled out proposed provisions on rumours and misinformation, which could carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of 40 lakh taka, or both.

It said defining a rumour as “unsubstantiated or unverified information” and misinformation as “false, distorted or misleading information” failed to establish sufficiently clear thresholds for criminal liability.

“Unverified information and false information are not the same thing,” HRSS said.

Information emerging through investigative journalism, human rights monitoring, eyewitness accounts or emergencies, it argued, cannot always be independently verified immediately. Criminalising publication of such information could obstruct journalism and rights monitoring.

HRSS also objected to provisions allowing cases or arrests based on broad concepts such as the country’s integrity, security, defence, public order, the image of the state and the reputation of individuals or institutions.

It raised similar concerns about plans to bring defamation, humiliation and bullying under Section 25, alongside offences such as sexual harassment, blackmail, sextortion, revenge pornography and digital child abuse.

The proposed amendment would increase the maximum punishment under the section to five years in prison or a fine of 20 lakh taka.

HRSS said combining defamation and forms of political expression with provisions designed to protect women and children from serious online abuse could create opportunities for misuse.

Political criticism, editorial cartoons, satire, protest slogans, opinions, public debate and criticism of the government could potentially trigger criminal proceedings if interpreted as defamatory or humiliating, it warned.

The group also criticised proposed Section 27 for treating the sharing of content as dissemination and potentially imposing the same punishment on someone aiding an offence as on the person committing the principal offence.

It said liability should distinguish between content creators and people who merely share material, taking into account intent, knowledge, harm and an individual’s role.

HRSS also sought explicit safeguards for memes, satire, parody, cartoons and AI-generated or edited material, warning that otherwise journalists, artists and ordinary social media users could face criminal liability.

Blocking powers and lack of safeguards

HRSS also objected to provisions expanding the power of law enforcement agencies, the Information Ministry and other agencies to block online content.

Allowing content to be blocked without a judicial order, while leaving appeals to the same authority that ordered the blocking, would conflict with principles of natural justice, it said.

The organisation opposed powers to cancel company registrations or licences or suspend operations for violations of the law, warning that such authority could place excessive administrative pressure on media organisations and digital platforms.

HRSS also questioned the proposed structure of the National Cyber Security Council, which would be headed by the prime minister and include ministers and government officials. Although private-sector experts would also sit on the council, they would be nominated by the government.

The arrangement, HRSS said, raised questions about independence, impartiality and conflicts of interest. It called for experts in cyber rights, information technology, journalism, human rights and law to be selected through a transparent process.

The group also said the Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draft provides immunity for officials without establishing adequate compensation or remedies for people subjected to unlawful arrest, wrongful content blocking or harassment.

HRSS called for the proposed provisions on rumours and misinformation to be reconsidered or withdrawn and for terms such as “unverified”, “derogatory to the state”, “humiliation” and “creating apprehension” to be replaced with narrowly defined language.

It also demanded explicit protection for journalism, satire, cartoons, parody, political criticism and other public-interest expression; judicial approval for content blocking or removal; an independent and pluralistic Cyber Security Council; and effective remedies for abuse of power.

HRSS urged the government to hold open consultations with journalists’ organisations, rights groups, bar associations, technology experts, academics and civil society before finalising the Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draft.

The concerns add to mounting criticism of the proposed changes.

On September 14, BLAST warned that provisions covering defamation, humiliation, bullying, rumours and misinformation were too broad for criminal offences and could expose legitimate criticism, investigative journalism, satire and political speech to prosecution. It also opposed expanding executive powers to block or remove online content without stronger judicial oversight.

TIB on September 11 called for a comprehensive revision, arguing that the Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draftblurred the distinct issues of cybercrime, cybersecurity and freedom of expression and could create scope for misinterpretation and abuse.

Tech Global Institute went further, calling for the current Cyber Protection Act (Amendment) draft to be withdrawn and redrafted after meaningful public consultation. It said the proposed changes could criminalise online expression and allow pre-trial detention, and urged the government to bring the legislation into line with Bangladesh’s international human rights obligations.