Imagine walking down the street when police or officers from the Department of Narcotics Control (DNC) suspect that you have a connection with drugs.
Under a new legal provision, that suspicion could lead to your mobile phone being seized and sent to the DNC’s Data Forensic Centre – without prior court approval.
Your phone could then be cloned, including messages, photographs and call records. If investigators find an old message from a friend saying, “Mama, maal achhe?” or “Brother, got any stuff?”, it could potentially bring you under a law that carries penalties ranging from a minimum of five years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment and even the death penalty.
The Narcotics Control (Amendment) Act 2026, gazetted on 16 July, has triggered concerns among lawyers and human rights activists, who say some of its provisions give authorities broad powers that could be misused.
They point to past concerns over the Digital Security Act during the previous Awami League government, when critics alleged that vague definitions and harsh punishments led to misuse of the law and repression of political opponents, journalists, and others.
Lawyers and rights activists fear the amended narcotics law could face similar pitfalls.
“If a phone contains even a mere conversation that provides some clue, police can frame someone under this section if they want,” lawyer Mohammad Asaduzzaman told TIMES.
He said allowing cases to be filed based only on messages, even without recovering drugs, was a risky provision.
His question was whether it was reasonable to create an entire legal framework based on suspicion without physical evidence.
ASM Nasiruddin Elan, director of human rights organisation Odhikar, also warned of possible misuse.
“If an opportunity is created to arrest people without evidence, the risk of misuse of the law will increase,” he told TIMES.
Referring to allegations that police sometimes plant cannabis on people who do not possess drugs and send them to jail, he said, “If new powers are granted by leaving loopholes in the law, preventing misuse will be difficult.”
The amended law introduces cyber-related drug offences through Sections 35A and 36A.
Section 36A criminalises illegal purchase, sale, supply, promotion, communication or transactions involving narcotics or psychoactive substances through cyberspace or digital devices.
The law states that a person commits an offence if they directly or indirectly use cyberspace, digital devices, websites, social media, mobile applications, online platforms, electronic communication systems or any other digital medium to purchase, sell, supply, advertise, mediate, communicate or attempt to conduct illegal activities involving narcotics.
It also covers the use or attempted use of digital payment systems, e-wallets, virtual assets or cryptocurrency for such activities.
The law specifically states that recovery of narcotics from the accused is not mandatory for offences under this section.
A person convicted under the provision may face imprisonment for any term or the death penalty and a fine of up to Tk20 lakh.
If the offence is committed internationally or through an organised criminal group, the fine may rise to Tk50 lakh, in addition to imprisonment.
The law also allows authorities to block, remove, seize, confiscate or transfer to the state any cyberspace, digital devices, digital accounts, payment systems, e-wallets, virtual assets or cryptocurrencies used in the offence through an order of a competent court or the Narcotics Crime Prevention Tribunal.
Section 35A(3) states that using information and communication technology, the internet, dark web, social media, websites, mobile applications, email, encrypted messaging or other digital platforms to communicate for buying, selling, supplying, transporting or distributing narcotics will also be considered an offence.
The section also covers the use of digital payment systems, e-wallets, virtual assets or cryptocurrency linked to narcotics.
Regarding digital information, Section 35A(4) states that the concerned DNC officer may seize, preserve and arrange forensic examination of computers, mobile devices, servers, cloud storage, digital wallets and related electronic information.
Critics say these provisions could create opportunities to implicate individuals by planting or misinterpreting digital evidence.
They argue that a message sent through platforms such as Messenger or WhatsApp could potentially lead to a phone search.
DNC Assistant Director (Operations) Faisal Mahmud told TIMES, “If a law is enacted, it applies to everyone. Since it applies to everyone, police can file cases under this law if they want.”
The new powers have also raised questions over constitutional protections.
Article 32 of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty except in accordance with law, while Article 43 protects citizens’ right to privacy of home and communication.
Lawyers question whether these protections remain effective when authorities can access private messages, photographs and call records.
They have also raised questions over whether such powers are consistent with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which recognises the right to life, liberty and personal security.
Nasiruddin Elan said granting authorities the power to examine private messages in cyberspace could harm personal privacy and create opportunities for abuse. “Such provisions could be described as a “black law”.
The government, however, has defended the amendments, saying they are necessary to address the changing nature of drug-related crimes.
The major change in the amended law is the recognition of cyber-based drug activities as offences.
Previously, drug cases generally depended on the physical recovery of narcotics such as yaba, cannabis or heroin.
Under the new provisions, communicating through the internet, social media, websites, mobile applications, email, encrypted messaging or even the dark web for buying, selling, supplying or transporting drugs can constitute an offence.
The law also covers attempts to commit such acts.
A key provision is that prosecutors do not need to prove that drugs were recovered from the accused.
Concerns have also been raised over arrest procedures.
The law allows a person to be kept in the DNC’s own custody as a “security measure” before being produced before a court, but it does not specify a maximum period, stating only that the person may be kept there for a “lawful period”.
Asaduzzaman questioned why a specific time limit was not included for such a sensitive power. He said the lack of a clear limit made the law incomplete.
Lawyer Abdus Salam also warned that public fear over drugs could create acceptance of excessive powers.
“The fear created in society over the severity of drugs has generated a kind of silent support among ordinary people for strict laws. But under the shadow of that very support, such powers can be used as a tool to control citizens – and this is the aspect that requires careful attention,” he said.
Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed assured TIMES that the law would not be misused and that action would be taken only according to legal provisions.
Asked about arrests without physical evidence or drug recovery, he said, “Most activities nowadays take place online, and if someone’s involvement with drugs is found online, there should be an opportunity to bring that person under the law.”
DNC Assistant Director Hasan Sadik Mahmud also defended the provision.
“Sending someone a message does not immediately make that person a criminal; only after verification of the allegation will action be taken against the actual offender,” he said.
However, Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid questioned how transparent the verification process would be in practice and whether assurances alone would be sufficient without an independent oversight mechanism.
