Home » Blog » Freedom of Expression and Press under Restrictive Laws in Bangladesh

Freedom of Expression and Press under Restrictive Laws in Bangladesh

By /

Authored By: Akhi Akter Nishi

University Of Information Technology and Sciences (UITS)

Abstract

This article examines the ongoing threats to freedom of expression and the press in Bangladesh under restrictive legal frameworks, with a particular focus on the newly enacted Cyber Security Act 2023, which replaced the controversial Digital Security Act 2018. While the Constitution of Bangladesh and international human rights treaties such as the ICCPR guarantee the right to free speech, recent legislative and judicial developments reveal a continued erosion of these freedoms. Drawing on statutory analysis, case law, and constitutional interpretation, the article explores how vague and broad legal provisions—retained or reintroduced under the new Act—have been used to target journalists, suppress dissent, and restrict democratic discourse. It highlights the real human cost of these laws, including arrests, harassment, and self-censorship. The article further critiques judicial passivity and examines the wider implications for democratic governance and the rule of law. Ultimately, it calls for urgent and meaningful reforms: repealing ambiguous clauses, decriminalizing defamation, strengthening judicial independence, and establishing an independent media regulatory body to protect freedom of expression as a lived and enforceable right.

Introduction

Freedom of expression is essential to democracy, yet in Bangladesh, this right remains under threat despite recent legal reforms. The repeal of the Digital Security Act 2018 and the enactment of the Cyber Security Act 2023 were expected to mark progress. However, many of the new law’s provisions remain vague and punitive, continuing to suppress dissent, target journalists, and stifle open debate. Although Article 39 of the Constitution guarantees free speech, arrests, intimidation, and censorship persist. Bangladesh’s decline in the World Press Freedom Index and continued legal actions against media professionals raise serious concerns about the sincerity of these reforms.

This article critically examines the impact of the Cyber Security Act 2023, judicial responses, and international obligations. It asks whether Bangladesh is truly upholding freedom of expression, or simply repackaging repression under a new legal name.

Background

Freedom of expression and a free press are fundamental rights enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience, speech, and the press, subject to “reasonable restrictions” for reasons such as state security, public order, or morality.[1] Bangladesh’s ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further obliges the state to ensure that any restriction on expression is necessary, proportionate, and clearly defined.[2]

Despite these commitments, the legal environment for free speech has become increasingly restrictive. Historic statutes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Bangladesh Television Authority Act 2001[3], the Telegraph Act 1885[4], and the Wireless Telegraph Act 1933[5], provide authorities with broad powers to control the flow of information and suppress dissent.[6]

A significant turning point was the enactment of the Digital Security Act 2018 (DSA), which criminalized a wide range of online expression and allowed for warrantless arrests.[7] The DSA’s vague provisions enabled authorities to detain journalists, writers, and ordinary citizens for criticism of the government or for allegedly “hurting religious sentiment.”[8] Despite widespread criticism, the Cyber Security Act 2023 (CSA) retained many of these repressive features, continuing to cast a shadow over the media landscape.[9]

The human impact is profound: journalists face harassment, arbitrary detention, and violence, while many resort to self-censorship to avoid retribution. These realities highlight the gap between constitutional ideals and the lived experience of free expression in Bangladesh.

The Digital Security Act 2018 and the Weaponization of Legal Language

DSA was passed with the stated aim of addressing cybercrime, hate speech, and digital threats. However, vague and overly broad language in its key sections has turned it into a legal tool for silencing dissent. Section 25 criminalizes publishing “false or offensive” content, while Section 29 penalizes online defamation. Section 31 criminalizes speech that “hurts religious sentiment” or “threatens communal harmony.” Section 43[10] allows arrest without a warrant, bypassing Article 33 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection from arbitrary detention.[11]

In State v Mushtaq Ahmed (2021), writer Mushtaq Ahmed died in custody after being held for months without trial under the DSA for his social media posts critical of the government. His case underscores the human cost of laws that lack clear boundaries.[12]

Criminal Defamation, Media Harassment, and Shrinking Press Freedom

Bangladesh’s legal framework still criminalizes defamation through Section 500[13] of the Penal Code 1860 as well as Section 29 of the DSA. Because these laws have been used repeatedly against journalists and also media outlets, they can chill investigative reporting and also free debate. When the High Court decided Md. Arifur Rahman v State [2010] 30 BLD (HCD) 32, it offered a rare moment of clarity after it affirmed that satire as well as cartooning are protected forms of expression. But the court did not always choose to defend press freedom. This is a decision that has proven to be inconsistent.[14]

In 2023, Prothom Alo journalist Shamsuzzaman Shams was arrested under the DSA for publishing an article on inflation. The article sparked national debate, but instead of addressing the economic issue, the government responded with legal repression.[15] According to Reporters Without Borders, Bangladesh ranked 163 out of 180 in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index. The absence of an independent media commission further exposes journalists to arbitrary arrests and harassment.[16]

Constitutional Contradictions and Judicial Inconsistencies

While Article 39 of the Constitution promises freedom of expression, Bangladeshi courts have struggled since they defend this right consistently. Bail is often denied in terms of DSA-related cases, pretrial detentions are often prolonged, and the charges are accepted without much scrutiny.

This is a sharp contrast to regional law. The Indian Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523[17], struck down Section 66A of the IT Act due to chilling speech along with vague language[18]. About the DSA or criminal defamation laws, a similar stance has not occurred. Bangladeshi courts still have yet to take it up.

Bangladesh protects freedom of expression under Article 19 because it is an ICCPR signatory requiring only necessary, proportionate restrictions.[19] The continued use of vague legal provisions contravenes each of these obligations. As a result of that, democracy and judicial credibility are now threatened.

Discussion

This article has examined how Bangladesh’s legal framework—first under the Digital Security Act 2018 and now the Cyber Security Act 2023—continues to constrain freedom of expression. While the repeal of the DSA was initially welcomed as a step toward reform, the Cyber Security Act retains many of the same vague and overbroad provisions. Sections authorizing content removal in the name of “national security” or “religious harmony” grant sweeping powers to authorities without clear procedural safeguards.

These laws, despite being repackaged, still allow for censorship, surveillance, and intimidation of dissenting voices. Journalists, human rights defenders, and ordinary citizens remain vulnerable to arbitrary legal action, violating the spirit of Article 39 of the Constitution and Article 19 of the ICCPR. Judicial inconsistency and the absence of an independent oversight mechanism have further compounded the erosion of free expression. Courts rarely strike down such laws or interpret them narrowly to protect civil liberties.

To reverse this trajectory, Bangladesh must undertake genuine legal reform. This includes revising ambiguous language in the CSA, decriminalizing defamation, establishing an independent media commission, and enhancing judicial capacity to uphold constitutional rights. Without such reforms, freedom of expression will remain a legal illusion rather than a democratic reality.

Conclusion

Freedom of expression is essential to democracy, yet in Bangladesh, it remains under threat from vague and punitive laws like the repealed Digital Security Act 2018 and the current Cyber Security Act 2023. These laws have frequently been used to suppress criticism, intimidate journalists, and limit open discourse—undermining the protections promised under Article 39 of the Constitution. Judicial inconsistency and the absence of institutional safeguards worsen the situation. To uphold democratic values, Bangladesh must urgently reform its legal framework: repeal ambiguous provisions, decriminalize defamation, and ensure independent oversight. Without these steps, freedom of expression will remain a promise unfulfilled, rather than a right meaningfully protected.

Reference(S):

[1] Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972, art 39.

[2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art 19

[3] Bangladesh Television Authority Act 2001

[4] Telegraph Act 1885

[5] Wireless Telegraph Act 1933

[6] ARTICLE 19, ‘Bangladesh: Media reforms urgently needed to protect freedom of expression’ (3 March 2025) https://www.article19.org/resources/bangladesh-media-reforms-urgently-needed-to-protect-freedom-of-expression/ accessed 27 June 2025

[7] Digital Security Act 2018

[8] Amnesty International, ‘Joint Statement on World Press Freedom Day: Bangladesh: End Crackdown on Journalists and Online Critics, and Protect Freedom of Expression’ (3 May 2023) https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/ASA1367402023ENGLISH.pdf accessed 27 June 2025.

[9] Cyber Security Act 2023

[10] Digital Security Act 2018 , ss 25, 29, 31, 43

[11] Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972, art 33

[12] State v Mushtaq Ahmed (2021)(unreported, cited in media reports)

[13] Penal Code 1860,s 500

[14] Md Arifur Rahman v State [2010] 30 BLD (HCD) 32

[15] Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘Bangladeshi journalist Shamsuzzaman Shams arrested under Digital Security Act’ (CPJ, 29 March 2023) https://cpj.org/2023/03/bangladeshi-journalist-shamsuzzaman-shams-arrested-under-digital-security-act/  accessed 28 June 2025

[16] Reporters Without Borders, ‘2024 World Press Freedom Index’ (RSF) https://rsf.org/en/country/bangladesh accessed 28 June 2025

[17] Shreya Singhal v Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523

[18] Information Technology Act 2000, s 66A

[19] n2

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top