The Human Rights Support Society (HRSS) has welcomed the initiative to enact a Cyber Protection Act to prevent cybercrime and ensure citizens' digital security, but warned that several provisions in the proposed amendments could threaten freedom of expression, media freedom, personal privacy and civil rights.
In a press statement issued on Thursday, the organisation said Sections 8(2), 25A, 25B, 26A, 29, 46 and 46A, along with provisions governing investigations, searches, seizures and arrests, required careful review and revision.
"Ensuring cybersecurity must not come at the cost of citizens' constitutional rights or the shrinking of democratic space," HRSS said, stressing that the state had a responsibility to protect both.
The organisation raised concerns over the powers granted to executive authorities under Sections 8(2), 8(3) and 8(4) to block or remove online content. It warned that allowing such action without proper judicial oversight could undermine freedom of expression and the right to information.
Regarding Section 25A, HRSS said, “Criminalising online defamation could expose journalists, investigative reporters and individuals publishing public-interest information or criticising the government to harassment through lawsuits.”
It recommended prioritising civil remedies over criminal penalties in defamation cases.
It also warned that vague definitions of humiliation and bullying under Section 25B could lead to the misuse of the law against political satire, cartoons, social criticism and peaceful dissent.
Section 26A, which proposes a maximum sentence of five years in prison or a fine of 10 lakh taka for spreading rumours and misinformation, was another major concern.
"Incorrect or misleading information should not automatically be treated as a criminal offence," the organisation said, calling for clear definitions based on the nature of the information, the publisher's intent, actual harm and the elements constituting an offence.
On Section 29, HRSS warned that provisions allowing the cancellation of licences or closure of organisations over institutional offences could undermine the independent activities of media outlets, civil society organisations and other institutions. It called for individual criminal responsibility to be imposed on the persons concerned and for any action against an organisation to be based on direct liability and proportionality.
The organisation also called for a review of Sections 46 and 46A, particularly the proposal to make certain offences related to freedom of expression cognisable and non-bailable, as well as provisions granting special legal protection to registered media outlets.
"Similar safeguards must also be ensured for ordinary citizens, online journalists, human rights defenders, researchers and those publishing information in the public interest," it said.
HRSS further expressed concern over the powers relating to investigations, searches, seizure of digital devices and arrests under Sections 33, 34 and 35, saying they must be subject to judicial oversight and safeguards for personal privacy, civil liberties and due process.
HRSS urged the government to bring all controversial provisions of the proposed law in line with Article 39 of the Constitution and international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
It recommended removing criminal penalties for online defamation, prioritising civil remedies and protecting public-interest reporting and criticism. It also called for precise definitions of offences involving rumours and misinformation to prevent criminal prosecution solely for publishing inaccurate information.
The organisation demanded judicial authorisation, transparency, written explanations and prompt appeal mechanisms before online content could be blocked or removed. It also recommended making offences related to freedom of expression bailable and introducing safeguards against arbitrary arrests and harassment through lawsuits.
It called for mandatory judicial oversight of searches, digital device seizures and arrests, alongside protections for personal data and due process.
HRSS also proposed making the National Cyber Security Council independent, inclusive and politically neutral. Its recommendations included reinstating the National Human Rights Commission chairman as a member, selecting private-sector experts through a transparent process and holding council meetings at least once every three months.
Regarding Section 52, the organisation called for provisions allowing compensation and effective remedies for citizens affected by unlawful arrests, unjustified content blocking or abuse of authority, alongside the existing immunity provisions.
It also urged the government to consult human rights organisations, journalist associations, legal experts, technology specialists, civil society representatives and other stakeholders before finalising the legislation.
"Digital security and freedom of expression are not mutually exclusive; rather, protecting both is equally important in a democratic state based on human rights," HRSS said.
It urged the government to ensure that efforts to prevent cybercrime did not create opportunities to suppress dissent, control journalism, harass citizens or violate personal privacy.
"Let digital security be ensured while citizens' rights and freedom of expression remain intact," the statement said.