The widespread use of narcotics among Bangladesh’s youth has escalated into a profound social crisis. A national survey supervised by the Department of Narcotics Control between February and June 2025 estimated that roughly 8.2 million citizens consume illicit drugs, with young people forming the vast majority.
Strikingly, a third began between the ages of eight and 17, and another 59% between 18 and 25. State action against illicit networks, political patrons, and corrupt officials is imperative.
To combat the problem, parliament passed the Narcotics Control Act in 2018, introducing capital punishment and life imprisonment for serious offences based on substance volume. A 2020 amendment enabled competent courts to hear cases without relying on specialized tribunals.
On July 13, 2026, parliament approved the Narcotics Control (Amendment) Bill. Under this legislation, buying, selling, supplying, advertising, or facilitating narcotics via cyberspace, social media, mobile applications, or electronic devices constitutes a criminal offence punishable by death and a fine of up to 20 lakh taka ($16,600).
Transnational operations face fines up to 50 lakh taka alongside long prison sentences. Crucially, the law explicitly removes the requirement to recover actual physical narcotics when initiating cases based on digital activity. Opposition requests for public consultation were rejected before the bill passed by voice vote.
This legislation echoes the Digital Security Act (DSA) of 2018, raising concerns over potential misuse. Enacted ostensibly to curb cybercrime, the DSA’s broad provisions enabled widespread harassment of journalists, writers, rights defenders, and political opponents.
Amnesty International recorded at least 433 detentions under the DSA by July 2021. In practice, long trials and prolonged detentions functioned as extrajudicial punishment.
Under the amended narcotics law, the risks are significantly higher due to the inclusion of capital punishment. Charges based on digital communications offer a convenient mechanism to target critics. A local opposition leader, student activist, or investigative journalist could easily be framed as part of an online trafficking ring.
During the 2018 anti-drug campaign, law-enforcement agencies faced scrutiny over suspected extrajudicial killings, with Amnesty International citing at least 373 suspicious deaths. Historical precedent suggests limited institutional safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of state power.
Allegations of evidence planting are well documented. In 2021, two police officers were suspended for framing civilians with drugs to extract bribes. Physical planting of evidence now intersects with digital fabrication.
Fake social-media accounts, device hacking, altered screenshots, and unauthorized account access could be used to generate incriminating records. Before authenticity can be independently verified, accused individuals face capital charges.
In an environment characterized by limited digital forensic independence, questionable chains of custody, and insufficient police accountability, permitting death sentences based solely on digital records introduces severe risks, particularly given that physical narcotics recovery is no longer required.
Under these conditions, an investigating officer’s report and a confiscated device could prove decisive. Executions resulting from fabricated digital evidence, flawed investigations, or false testimony would be irreversible.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has consistently warned against flawed drug policies, noting that capital punishment does not serve as a unique deterrent and that drug-related crimes do not meet the international legal threshold of "most serious crimes."
Deterrence relies on certainty of apprehension rather than severity of punishment. Relying on capital punishment risks penalizing low-level couriers or wrongly accused individuals while leaving major traffickers and financiers untouched.
Parliament should reconsider the law to ensure fundamental legal protections. Prosecution should require physical evidence, verified financial records, or independent corroboration rather than digital communications alone.
Mandatory judicial authorization for device seizures, independent forensic standards, recorded evidence collection, and strict penalties for official misconduct are necessary to prevent abuse.
Severe penalties, including capital punishment or life imprisonment, should remain restricted to major trafficking operations as outlined in the original 2018 framework, rather than applying to uncorroborated digital claims.
Legal frameworks aimed at combating drug abuse must contain sufficient safeguards to prevent arbitrary detention and harassment.
—
Aparajita Debnath is an Advocate at the Dhaka Judge Court.