Amidst widespread criticism at home and abroad, the government has made the decision to replace the Digital Security Act (DSA) with the Cyber Security Act (CSA). The new act is expected to be presented in the national parliament in September. As per the draft of the proposed legislation, several sections of the former law have been modified to be bailable, and the certain penalties have been reduced. However, there appears to be minimal distinction between the two laws.
Concerns have already been raised from various quarters, including the media. International human rights organisations have also voiced their apprehensions. In a review of the draft Cyber Security Act, Amnesty International observed that the new law has retained the repressive provisions of the existing DSA.
Referring to Article 6 of the Cyber Security Act (CSA), the agency says, "The draft law retains all but one of the offences contained in the DSA verbatim. The only changes the CSA makes are related to sentencing."
Apart from this, Sections 25, (publication of ‘false or offensive information’), 29 (publication of ‘defamatory information’), and 31 (punishment for ‘deteriorating law and order’) of the DSA remain intact verbatim in the draft Cyber Security Act. Section 29 only provides for fine instead of imprisonment.
The agency also pointed out that Certain vague and overbroad terms used in Section 25 (such as ‘affect the image or reputation of the state’ or ‘spread confusion’) remain undefined in CSA leading to arbitrary application of the law.
Section 31 of the Cyber Security Act states that if a person intentionally publishes or broadcasts on a website or in digital format anything which “creates hostility, hatred or prejudice among different classes or communities” or “destroys communal harmony or creates unrest or disorder or deteriorates law and order”, the person shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or with fine not exceeding Tk 500,000 or with both.
Amnesty International expressed its concern that there is a risk of arbitrary application of this section due to lack of specific definition in this case.
According to Amnesty International, “CSA similarly retains Sections 21 and 28 of the DSA verbatim which criminalise ‘making any kind of propaganda or campaign against liberation war, spirit of liberation war, father of the nation, national anthem or national flag’ and ‘publication, broadcast, etc. of information in website or in any electronic format that hurts the religious values or sentiment’ respectively.”
According to the agency, Section 42 of the CSA is identical to Section 43 of the DSA and continues to authorise any police officer to search premises, to seize computers and similar hardware, and to search the body of a person and to arrest a person present in that place — without a warrant.
This new legislation could potentially be employed for purposes of intimidating, harassing, arbitrarily arresting journalists, and suppressing dissent.
Simultaneously, Amnesty International has also recommended the release of individuals who are detained in pending cases under the Digital Security Act. We believe that, in the pursuit of justice, the government should take necessary action by giving due consideration to this recommendation.
Only a limited number of cases filed under DSA have been resolved over the past four and a half years. Consequently, individuals accused and held under this law are incarcerated for months, and in some cases, even years.
In this context, the case of Khadijatul Kubra, a student at Jagannath University, stands out. With more than 11 months of imprisonment, her education is on the brink of end. Similar to Khadijatul Kubra, there are other detainees who are held under the DSA, and it's imperative that they be released promptly.
Given that numerous sections of the proposed Act have been made bailable, those individuals who were detained under the earlier Act should be granted fair opportunities for bail.