The Editors’ Council has proposed mandatory court approval before journalists can be arrested, searched, subjected to surveillance or have their digital devices accessed or seized over professional activities, as part of 12 recommendations to strengthen press freedom and judicial oversight under the proposed Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act 2026.
In a statement on Sunday, the organisation of national daily newspaper editors also recommended judicial approval or review within 48 hours of emergency action and urged that such cases remain bailable.
The proposals seek to protect independent journalism, freedom of expression and public-interest reporting while ensuring transparency, accountability and effective remedies against misuse of cybercrime laws.
Following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government, the interim administration repealed the Cyber Security Act 2023 and introduced a new cyber protection ordinance in 2025.
The ordinance was passed as the Cyber Protection Act 2026, during the first session of the 13th parliament, with the government announcing plans for further amendments.
Concerns have since emerged that some proposed provisions could enable unchecked surveillance and repression. The council urged the government to reconsider the legislation after consulting stakeholders and ensuring effective judicial oversight.
Its 12 recommendations cover protection of journalism and legitimate expression, clearer definitions of cyber offences, safeguards for public-interest reporting, judicial supervision of content removal, protection of confidential sources and stronger independent oversight.
The council said news reports, investigative journalism, analysis and opinions published in the public interest must not be criminalised merely because of their content or critical stance.
It proposed protecting fair criticism, political opinions, satire, cartoons, parody, consumer complaints and unintentional mistakes from criminal prosecution.
No offence relating to freedom of expression should be made non-bailable, it said, while provisions safeguarding constitutional rights and journalistic freedom should take precedence.
The council also called for separate definitions of misinformation, disinformation and rumours, arguing that incorrect, incomplete, unverified or unsubstantiated information should not automatically constitute a criminal offence.
It sought precise definitions of bullying, defamation, humiliation, statements derogatory to the state, damage to friendly relations with foreign countries, sexual harassment and sextortion.
Public-interest reporting on corruption, abuse of power, financial irregularities, environmental damage, public health, consumer rights, government expenditure and irregularities in public and private institutions must receive explicit protection, the council said.
It also proposed excluding criticism of governments, state institutions, officials, elected representatives and public policies, along with political opinions, analysis, satire and sarcasm, from the scope of cybercrime.
Vague expressions such as “disparaging the state” should be removed, while concepts involving state security and friendly relations with foreign countries should be clearly defined.
On digital content removal, the council recommended requiring a specific legal basis, written justification and evidence of necessity before any news report, post, video or other material is removed or blocked.
Except in emergencies, affected individuals or institutions should have an opportunity to respond and appeal against such orders. Emergency blocking decisions should undergo judicial review within 48 hours, with information about the actions made public.
The council opposed treating online defamation as a separate, more severe cybercrime, proposing instead that complaints be handled through the existing framework of the Bangladesh Press Council.
It also recommended barring mobile courts and executive authorities from adjudicating complaints involving news publication, freedom of expression, defamation or journalistic content.
An individual report or publication should not result in the closure of an entire media organisation, cancellation of its registration or disproportionate institutional punishment, the council said.
Such complaints should fall under the Press Council, whose complaint and investigation mechanisms should be strengthened to provide appropriate remedies instead of immediately initiating criminal proceedings.
The organisation also proposed modernising the Press Council’s jurisdiction and effectiveness to cover relevant digital news outlets alongside newspapers.
Journalists should not be compelled to disclose the identities of confidential sources, it said.
For broader accountability, the council proposed independent oversight by the National Cyber Protection Council over agencies exercising powers of investigation, arrest, search, seizure, surveillance and content removal.
It recommended including cybersecurity, legal and human rights specialists, as well as individuals experienced in media and editorial leadership, in the council.
The proposals also seek safeguards for members’ independence, clear limits on investigators’ powers, accountability for decisions and public disclosure of the council’s decisions and policy recommendations.
The Editors’ Council said the proposed amendments had yet to be finalised and warned that unclear boundaries between cybersecurity, cybercrime and digital journalism could obstruct independent and responsible reporting.
