ICT Act provision : A new cloak for the controversial

THE cabinet’s approval of the Digital Security Bill 2018, now ready for placement in the parliament for its passage, is gravely concerning in that the bill has incorporated the controversial Section 57 of the Information and Communications Technology Act 2006, which with a manifestly coercive intent has been misused and abused since it came into force. A legislation that is open to wider interpretations because of precariously defined terms could very well be misused and abused, especially when the intent remains coercive. A number of political activists, academicians, rights activists, journalists and retired military officials, among others, were prosecuted under the act, understandably to oppress dissenting voice or opinions not keeping to the government narrative, either by the law enforcement agencies themselves or on the filing of cases by ruling Awami League activists, mostly centring round individual postings on Facebook wall, and even tagging and being tagged. The situation reached such a ludicrous height that an upazila nirbahi officer of Barguna in July 2017 was prosecuted on charge of ‘distorting the image’ of Bangladesh’s founding president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the official invitation card of Independence Day programme, which was actually drawn by the winner of a children’s painting competition.

In such a situation, with Section 57 of the Information and Communications Technology Act 2006 being incorporated, with almost the same content, into the Digital Security Bill 2018, fears that this may curb the freedom of thought and conscience, an indefeasible right that the constitution confers on citizens as the right to freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of press, barring some restrictions, are not unfounded, given how Section 57 of the ICT Act has so far been used, misused and abused. The bill considers ‘propaganda’ against the country’s founding president and the 1971 liberation war through electronic media or digital device as crimes, leaving questions as to what constitute ‘propaganda’ as new research findings might seem like propaganda to some while they could mean ‘facts’ to others. A ‘deliberate’ publication of any material in electronic form causing slide in law and order, prejudice against the image of the state or person and hurt to religious belief could also constitute crimes keeping to the provisions in the bill. Terms such as ‘deliberate’, ‘prejudice’, and ‘religious belief’ could very well be interpreted in more ways than what the users of the word intend them to mean, thus leaving the scope for misuse or abuse. The abolition of Section 57 in the ICT Act, as hinted by the cabinet secretary, in the end, comes of no use in the freedom of expression as the section has been incorporated in the proposed digital security law, in a ‘simplified manner with some modifications’ though.

Although the proposed law proposes the establishment of an 11-member ‘digital security council’, it could hardly help if it cannot be allowed to function judiciously and independently. The risk and fears that remained when the Information and Communications Technology Act has been in fore would remain even when the digital security law will be in force. The government must, therefore, go for wider consultation on the law with all stakeholders and must not pass the bill into law as it is now.

Medline Pubmed