Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has welcomed the initiative to frame the Cyber Security Act to prevent cybercrime and ensure digital security, but expressed deep concern that several provisions in the proposed amendments risk undermining freedom of expression, press freedom, personal privacy, and civic rights.
In a press release issued on Wednesday, Ijajul Islam, executive director of HRSS, urged the government to review and amend the controversial clauses, emphasising that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that constitutional rights and democratic spaces are not curtailed in the name of cyber security.
Highlighting specific areas of concern, HRSS mentioned that Sections 8(2), 8(3), and 8(4) grant executive authorities power to block and remove online content without adequate judicial oversight, which could impede freedom of expression and the right to information.
The rights organisation pointed out that Section 25(a), which proposes classifying defamation in cyberspace as a criminal offence, creates a severe risk of harassing lawsuits against journalism, investigative reporting, public interest disclosures, and government criticism, advocating civil remedies over criminal penalties instead.
Moreover, HRSS warned that vague definitions of humiliation and bullying under Section 25(b) leave room for potential misuse against political satire, cartoons, social commentary, and peaceful dissent.
Expressing alarm over Section 26(a), which proposes up to five years of imprisonment or a fine of Tk10 lakh for spreading rumours and misinformation, HRSS stressed that erroneous or misleading information should not automatically be treated as a criminal offence without specifically defining intent, actual damage, and the elements of the crime.
Regarding Section 29, the organisation observed that provisions allowing the cancellation of licences or operations of institutions could adversely affect independent media outlets and civic groups, maintaining that individual liability should be separated from institutional actions.
Moreover, HRSS called for reviewing Sections 46 and 46(a), which make expression-related offences cognizable and non-bailable while reserving special legal protections for registered media, arguing that identical protections must extend to general citizens, online journalists, rights activists, researchers, and public interest whistleblowers.
It also emphasised that Sections 33, 34, and 35 regarding investigation, search, device seizure, and arrest powers must guarantee personal privacy, civic liberty, and due judicial process.
To address these issues, HRSS submitted an 11-point recommendation to the government, demanding that all controversial provisions be aligned with Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, international human rights charters, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The organisation recommended decriminalising online defamation in favour of civil remedies, clearly defining rumour-related offences so that simple inaccuracies are not criminalised, and protecting political satire, cartoons, investigative reporting, and peaceful dissent from legal abuse.
It also urged for independent judicial approval, written show-cause notices, transparency, and rapid appeal mechanisms prior to content removal or blocking, while making expression-related offences bailable to prevent arbitrary arrests and harassment.
HRSS further called for mandatory court oversight and privacy protections during searches, digital device seizures, and arrests, alongside equal legal safeguards for content creators, researchers, activists, and ordinary citizens.
In addition, the rights group recommended making the National Cyber Security Council independent, multi-stakeholder, and non-partisan, restoring the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission to the council, selecting private experts transparently, and mandating meetings at least once every three months.
The organisation also advocated amending Section 52 to include compensation and effective remedies for citizens facing unlawful arrest, wrongful content blocking, or abuse of power, and insisted on holding meaningful consultations with journalists, legal experts, technologists, civil society, and rights groups before finalising the legislation.
Concluding its position, HRSS stressed that digital security and freedom of expression are not opposing forces, but equally vital components of a democratic, rights-governed state.
The rights group reiterated that measures taken against cybercrime must not become a means to suppress dissent, control journalism, harass citizens, or violate privacy, urging the government to reconsider the proposed amendments to draft a transparent, accountable, and citizen-friendly cyber security law.
