Cyber law faces rights concerns

Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Md Asaduzzaman has reaffirmed the government’s commitment to protecting citizens’ rights, while the Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has warned that several provisions of the draft Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026 could undermine freedom of expression, media freedom, privacy and dissent.

Speaking at a national consultation on preventing human trafficking and migrant smuggling at the InterContinental Hotel in Dhaka on Thursday, Asaduzzaman described human trafficking as a “grave, inhumane and cruel crime” and called for stronger laws, better law enforcement capacity, improved evidence collection and faster trials.

Bangladesh ratified the anti-trafficking protocol in September 2019, he said, adding that laws had since been amended and new legislation enacted to meet international commitments. The definition of trafficking has also been broadened to cover emerging forms, including online activities.

The government has formulated the Gambling Prevention Act 2026 and is taking steps to address online gambling and internet-based trafficking, the minister said.

On judicial delays, Asaduzzaman said judges could not be blamed for the backlog, which he attributed to structural and procedural limitations. Around 4.6 million cases are pending against nearly 2,400 judges nationwide, he said, adding that the government was working to speed up their disposal.

Regarding migrant workers, the minister said Bangladesh could not prevent people from going abroad in search of livelihoods and a better future, but many face hardship after becoming irregular migrants. 

Cooperation from destination countries is essential, he said. The Legal Aid Directorate provides assistance to migrant workers and vulnerable people through a dedicated hotline.

He also pointed to amendments to the Narcotics Control Act and warned that online drug trading could create new challenges. A specialised cyber unit within the police is planned to tackle such offences.

Meanwhile, HRSS raised serious objections to parts of the proposed cyber law. While acknowledging the need for effective laws against cybercrime, online harassment, blackmailing, sextortion, revenge pornography, digital child abuse, identity theft and fraud, the rights body described some provisions as “vague, overly broad and repressive”.

HRSS is particularly concerned about the proposed maximum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment or a Tk40 lakh fine, or both, for spreading rumours and misinformation. It said treating “unverified” information as an offence could hamper investigative journalism, human rights monitoring and emergency reporting.

The organisation also objected to bringing defamation, humiliation and bullying under Section 25, which was originally intended to address offences such as sexual harassment, blackmailing, sextortion, revenge pornography and digital child abuse. The proposed punishment is up to five years’ imprisonment or a Tk20 lakh fine.

HRSS warned that the broad definition of “demeaning” could expose political criticism, satire, cartoons, protest slogans and public interest commentary to criminal proceedings.

It also questioned proposed Section 27, under which sharing content would amount to dissemination, while abetment could attract the same punishment as the principal offence. The rights body called for safeguards covering memes, satire, parody, cartoons and AI-generated content.

HRSS further opposed executive content blocking without prior judicial approval and provisions allowing registration or licence revocation. It called for judicial review, written reasons and effective appeal mechanisms.

The organisation also questioned the independence of the proposed National Cyber Security Council, which would be headed by the Prime Minister and comprise ministers and government officials. It called for independent experts in cyber rights, technology, journalism, human rights and law to be included through a transparent process.

HRSS urged reconsideration of the rumour and misinformation provisions, narrower definitions, safeguards for journalism and political criticism, judicial approval for content blocking, an independent multi-stakeholder Cyber Security Council and compensation for unlawful arrests, content removal and abuse of power.