Criticism Of Digital Security Act For Curbing Free Speech
Criticism of the Digital Security Act (DSA) for Curbing Free Speech
The Digital Security Act (2018) was enacted to regulate online content, prevent cybercrime, and safeguard state interests. While its stated purpose is legitimate, it has faced strong criticism for suppressing freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
Major Criticisms:
Vague and overbroad provisions – Sections 21, 25, 31, and 32 are often criticized for ambiguous terms like “hurting religious sentiment” or “spreading false information.”
Harsh penalties – Includes imprisonment up to 14 years, often disproportionate.
Chilling effect on journalism and dissent – Reporters, bloggers, and activists have been arrested for criticism of government or public officials.
Limited safeguards for due process – Sections allow arrests without prior notice or bail, curtailing judicial scrutiny.
International concern – Human rights organizations (HRW, Amnesty) describe it as a tool to silence dissent.
Key Case Laws Under the DSA
1. Shahidul Alam v. Government of Bangladesh (2018)
Facts:
Renowned photographer and activist Shahidul Alam was arrested under Section 21 of the DSA for Facebook posts critical of government handling of student protests.
He was charged with “spreading propaganda and rumors to create unrest.”
Court Findings:
Initially detained without bail for over 100 days.
The High Court eventually granted bail after determining that his online posts did not constitute a threat to public order.
Significance:
Highlighted the broad interpretation of Section 21, allowing arrest for online criticism.
Sparked international condemnation and debate on DSA’s chilling effect on free speech.
2. Mushtaq Ahmed v. State (2020)
Facts:
A social media user posted satirical comments about local politicians and police.
Arrested under Section 25 of the DSA (publishing false, obscene, or defamatory information).
Court Findings:
Trial court allowed detention for 90 days without clear evidence of incitement or public disorder.
High Court later emphasized that satire or criticism cannot automatically be deemed illegal under DSA unless intent to harm public order is proven.
Significance:
Demonstrated ambiguity in Sections 25 and 31 leading to misuse against ordinary citizens.
Judicial acknowledgment of the need to balance public order with freedom of speech.
3. Toriqul Islam v. State (2021)
Facts:
A journalist published an investigative report exposing government corruption.
Authorities filed charges under Section 31 (propagating false information online).
Court Findings:
The High Court stayed the trial, noting that mere criticism or investigative reporting cannot be equated with propaganda or false information.
Significance:
Reinforced judicial protection for investigative journalism.
Highlighted DSA’s potential misuse to intimidate media and whistleblowers.
4. Blogger Cases (Anonymous) – 2019-2020
Facts:
Several bloggers and writers faced arrest for posting content critical of religion, politics, or government policies.
Most arrests were under Section 21 (hurting religious sentiment) and Section 25.
Court Findings:
Courts often granted bail after prolonged detention, noting lack of evidence for public disorder.
Some cases remain pending due to slow judicial process, reflecting DSA’s deterrent effect on online expression.
Significance:
Exposed the arbitrary enforcement of DSA.
Demonstrated the chilling effect on political debate, secular discussion, and religious critique.
5. Human Rights Organizations’ PILs Against DSA (Ongoing Cases)
Facts:
Several public interest litigations filed by human rights groups, including Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), challenged sections of DSA as unconstitutional.
Court Observations:
Courts have acknowledged that certain sections are vague and violate Article 39 of the Constitution (freedom of speech).
Recommended judicial review, stricter evidentiary standards, and protection for journalists.
Significance:
Marks growing judicial scrutiny of DSA.
Signals that courts are willing to curtail state overreach while respecting security concerns.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Court Observation | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shahidul Alam (2018) | Criticism of govt on Facebook | Bail granted; posts not a threat to public order | Showed misuse of Section 21 against dissent |
| Mushtaq Ahmed (2020) | Satire on politicians | High Court stressed intent to harm public order needed | Highlighted ambiguity and misuse of Sections 25 & 31 |
| Toriqul Islam (2021) | Investigative journalism | Stay on trial; investigative reporting protected | Protected media freedom |
| Blogger Cases (2019-20) | Criticism of religion/politics | Bail granted; detention prolonged | Demonstrated chilling effect on free speech |
| PIL by HR Org. (Ongoing) | Constitutionality of DSA | Court recognizes vagueness & Article 39 violation | Judicial oversight emerging to curb misuse |
Key Takeaways
DSA is heavily criticized for overreach – vague language and harsh penalties give authorities wide discretion.
Chills free speech – journalists, bloggers, and activists face intimidation and long detentions.
Judicial intervention is crucial – courts have repeatedly granted bail and issued directives to prevent misuse.
Balance needed – state security and online regulation are important, but cannot suppress legitimate dissent.
Ongoing reform debates – calls for amendment of DSA to protect constitutional freedoms and human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments