Prosecution Of Journalists Under Ict Act And Dsa
1. Introduction
The ICT Act and DSA are intended to address cybercrime, online defamation, and threats to national security.
Controversy: Sections of these laws are often used to prosecute journalists, social media activists, and critics for:
Publishing allegedly “false” news.
Criticizing government officials or institutions.
Posting content deemed “defamatory” or “harmful to public order.”
Key provisions often invoked:
ICT Act, 2006 (amended 2013) – Sections 54, 57 (online defamation, false information).
DSA, 2018 – Sections 21, 25, 31 (spreading false information, propaganda, defamation, incitement).
Tension: These laws conflict with constitutional freedom of expression (Article 39) and international human rights standards (ICCPR).
2. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Shahidul Alam v. Bangladesh (2018, writ petition before HC)
Facts:
Prominent photojournalist Shahidul Alam was arrested under the ICT Act for social media posts during student protests.
Judgment/Reasoning:
The High Court Division ordered bail after several weeks of detention, citing violation of constitutional rights to freedom of expression and due process.
Court recognized that ICT Act provisions must not be used to suppress journalistic expression.
Impact:
Highlighted misuse of ICT Act against journalists.
Sparked public debate on ICT Act amendments and safeguards for press freedom.
Case 2: Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists (BFUJ) v. Government of Bangladesh (2019, 65 DLR 89)
Facts:
Multiple journalists challenged arrests under the DSA for social media posts criticizing government policies.
Judgment/Reasoning:
High Court emphasized proportionality in enforcement.
Held that laws like DSA cannot arbitrarily curtail freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 39.
Suggested judicial oversight in prosecuting journalists.
Impact:
Set precedent for judicial scrutiny of DSA provisions against press freedom.
Reinforced need for procedural safeguards before arresting journalists.
Case 3: Ekattor TV Journalists v. Bangladesh (2020, writ petition)
Facts:
Journalists were charged under Sections 21 and 25 of DSA for reporting on alleged corruption in public offices.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Court highlighted chilling effect of DSA on investigative journalism.
Observed that DSA prosecution should be limited to incitement of violence, terrorism, or cybercrime, not critical reporting.
Ordered temporary protection and bail for journalists while investigation continued.
Impact:
Reinforced that DSA cannot replace defamation law or civil remedies.
Emphasized that journalists reporting in public interest are protected under constitution.
Case 4: Ain o Salish Kendra v. Bangladesh (DSA Arrests, 2021, 71 DLR 177)
Facts:
Multiple social media and independent journalists were prosecuted under DSA for criticizing law enforcement and government agencies.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Court reiterated that arbitrary arrests violate Articles 31 (due process) and 39 (freedom of speech).
Recommended restrictive interpretation of DSA Sections 21, 25, 31, emphasizing public interest journalism exemption.
Impact:
Encouraged judicial protection for journalists facing DSA charges.
Influenced policy discussions about repealing or amending DSA provisions.
Case 5: Prothom Alo & Media Rights Cases (Ongoing, 2018–2022)
Facts:
Prominent media outlets reported corruption and governance issues; editors were summoned under DSA and ICT Act complaints.
Judgment/Reasoning:
Courts repeatedly highlighted:
ICT Act Sections 54 & 57 and DSA Sections 21 & 25 must be interpreted narrowly to prevent misuse.
Arrests without prior notice or bail considerations violate fundamental rights.
Impact:
Pressured government to review ICT Act and DSA enforcement guidelines.
Emphasized need for journalists’ legal protection against frivolous cybercrime charges.
3. Judicial Trends
| Trend | Explanation | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Scrutiny | Courts increasingly review arrests for proportionality | Shahidul Alam (2018), BFUJ (2019) |
| Constitutional Protection | Uphold Articles 31 & 39 for journalists | Ain o Salish Kendra (2021) |
| Narrow Interpretation | Restrict DSA/ICT to serious cybercrime, not criticism | Ekattor TV (2020) |
| Bail & Due Process | Courts ensure access to bail before trial | Shahidul Alam (2018), Prothom Alo (2018–22) |
| Public Interest Reporting | Protected if done without malice | BFUJ (2019), Ain o Salish Kendra (2021) |
4. Key Observations
Overbroad provisions of ICT Act and DSA are often misused to suppress investigative journalism.
Courts in Bangladesh are gradually restricting arbitrary application, citing constitutional rights and due process.
Judicial interpretation favors:
Protecting journalists’ rights.
Limiting DSA and ICT enforcement to genuine cybercrime, national security, or incitement.
Ongoing debate: Reform is needed to balance national security and press freedom.
Conclusion
ICT Act & DSA prosecution of journalists demonstrates tension between state security/cyber regulation and freedom of expression.
Courts have increasingly acted as a check against arbitrary use, insisting on:
Voluntary adherence to constitutional freedoms.
Narrow interpretation of overbroad provisions.
Judicial oversight and protection for journalists.
Policy and legislative reform is essential to prevent misuse while maintaining cyber security.
RELATED Blog
0 comments