Cyber Security Act draft revised again: What are the new provisions?

The new draft amendment to the Cyber Security Act proposes reducing the penalties for defamation, spreading rumors, and disinformation. Some definitions have also been changed. However, provisions to classify these issues as criminal offenses remain in place. Experts fear that merely reducing penalties will not eliminate the risk of curbing freedom of expression and misuse of the law.

The draft was published on the ICT Division’s website on Wednesday. Public opinion is sought on it by the 25th of this month.

According to the new draft, the maximum penalty for spreading rumors and disinformation is proposed to be reduced from 10 years to 5 years of imprisonment, and the fine from 4 million to 1 million taka. The maximum penalty for defamation is suggested to be reduced from five years to two years of imprisonment, and the fine from Tk 2 million to Tk 500,000.

The new draft also proposes some protective measures for registered media. It includes a provision requiring tribunal approval before arresting anyone due to news, opinions, pictures, or cartoons published in these media. However, there remain questions regarding the power to search, seize digital equipment, and arrest without a warrant.

The Digital Security Act was enforced in 2018 amid widespread opposition during the Awami League government's tenure. It was accused of being used to suppress dissent. Following the fall of the Awami League government in the 2024 mass uprising, the interim government repealed the act. Subsequently, the Cyber Security Ordinance-2025 was issued. On 30 April, the ordinance was repealed and the Cyber Security Bill-2026 was passed in Parliament. Within months of the bill being passsed, the current government took the initiative to amend it again.

In July, the government formed a committee to draft amendments to the law. The government's delegation held several meetings with stakeholders and media representatives on the draft in September and October. Based on the opinions from these meetings, a new draft has been published, according to multiple government officials. However, stakeholders say that if the draft is passed in its current form, the law will remain just as repressive as before.

The new draft brings changes to the definition of rumors. It now emphasises the deliberate creation, publication, or dissemination of false or distorted information that causes public panic, excitement, or social unrest. The previous draft mentioned unsubstantiated information, news, or claims.

For defamation, the new draft proposes following Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860. It defines defamatory actions as words, behavior, publications, indications, gestures, or activities that exceed the bounds of constructive criticism to insult, mock, or disdain an individual, which affects their personal dignity and self-respect. Ridiculing someone's physical appearance, color, or bodily characteristics falls under its scope.

Additionally, creating memes or caricatures by distorting pictures, videos, or voices to mock someone is also included.

When asked, Fawzia Afroz, Bangladesh head of the technology research organization TechGlobal Institute, told Prothom Alo, "The definition of defamation already exists in the Penal Code. So why is it necessary to reinstate the same offense in this new law?"

She said issues like defamation, rumors, and vilification should not be brought under this law. Furthermore, who will determine the limits of constructive criticism? What will be the standards?

Referring to memes and other satirical content, Fawzia Afroz asked whether creating political cartoons-memes or critical caricatures could also be considered crimes.

The new draft includes special protection proposals for registered media outlets and the institutions operating them. According to Section 46(a) of the draft, tribunal approval is required before arresting anyone due to news, opinions, pictures, or cartoons published in registered media.

Similarly, Section 29 stipulates that at least 15 days of written notice must be given for explanations before initiating any lawsuits or legal proceedings against a registered media outlet or its operating institution.

Such provisions could provide significant protection for journalists and media outlets. However, there are questions about the scope of this protection. It is unclear whether freelance journalists will receive similar benefits. Moreover, there is no mandatory requirement for obtaining court approval before searching media offices or seizing journalists' digital equipment.

Kamal Ahmed, consulting editor of The Daily Star and former chief of the Media Reform Commission, views the acceptance of stakeholder perspectives and reopening the revised draft for their views as positive. He believes that the proposed amendments are insufficient to address the existing concerns of the law.

Speaking to Prothom Alo, he said, "The protections being discussed for the media and journalists regarding freedom of expression should equally be extended to ordinary citizens. Otherwise, it will create discrimination in terms of freedom of expression. There remains a concern that the draft could be used as a tool to suppress political opposition or critics. Necessary amendments should be made in this regard."

Section 8 of the draft provides opportunities to block content for various reasons, such as undermining the country's integrity, dignity, security, public order, inciting religious hatred, violence, defamation, blackmailing, revenge pornography, digital child sexual exploitation-related content, and sexual harassment.

Section 2 states that law enforcement agencies, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, or any agency, institution, or force empowered by the government for this purpose, can take measures to remove or block content if there is reason to believe, upon analysis of information and data, that they have grounds to do so. They can take this initiative through the Director General of the National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA) and, where applicable, request the BTRC to do so.

However, due to the lack of specific explanations for terms like "undermining the country's dignity" and "public order" in the draft, experts fear the misuse of this section.

The draft also states that if any content is removed or blocked, the relevant individual or institution must be informed of the reason within three days.

The aggrieved person can apply to the NCSA for restoration of the content. Upon receiving the application, the agency must resolve it within 15 days, after giving the government or concerned party a chance to be heard. However, human rights advocates argue that the reasons for blocking content should be disclosed at the time of decision-making, not after three days.

The draft proposes retaining the power of law enforcement agencies to search, seize, and arrest without a warrant. Section 35 states that if there is a risk of evidence destruction due to a cyber-attack or illegal intrusion into critical information infrastructure, a police officer can take measures without a warrant after recording the reasons. In such cases, they have the power to search and seize digital equipment as well as arrest the suspect.

When asked about the draft, Iftekharuzzaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), told Prothom Alo that merely reducing the severity of punishments does not change the repressive nature of a law. The repressive elements that curtailed people's freedom of expression remain in the draft.

Iftekharuzzaman believes that providing special privileges to a specific class through any law reflects a discriminatory and divisive system. He stated that this discriminatory law is unacceptable in any form.