On 28 September 2026, after a Secretariat meeting with editors, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed said the government considers a proposal to require prior court approval before any journalist is arrested or acted against under the amended Cyber Security Act to be "appropriate and reasonable," according to Bonik Barta's report. It is a real concession, and it deserves a fair reading. It also leaves most of the harder questions open.
The case for the government's approach
The strongest argument for a cyber law with teeth is that coordinated rumours can cause real harm. Bangladesh has seen online falsehoods fuel street violence, and a government that inherited the Digital Security Act (DSA) cannot simply leave the internet unregulated. A procedural safeguard like judicial pre-approval is also the kind of proportionate tool this publication generally favours. It targets abuse by police without removing the state's ability to prosecute genuine crimes.
The record explains why journalists want that safeguard. In 2023 the Hasina government announced that the DSA would be replaced by a "Cyber Security Act of 2023." It said the new law would keep many provisions and remove only those open to misuse, as Al Jazeera reported. The Editors' Council's Mahfuz Anam offered only "cautious optimism," and a Supreme Court lawyer said replacement alone would not be enough. After the political transition, the Advisory Council approved a Cyber Security Ordinance in May 2025. It repealed nine sections of the earlier law, and in October 2025 approved an amendment allowing dismissal of all pending DSA cases, per The Business Standard. The ICT Division's laws page now lists a Cyber Security Act dated 15 April 2026 and an amendment entry dated 13 September 2026. That means the statute has been rewritten repeatedly in about three years.
What the pledge does not say
The Bonik Barta account leaves several gaps that decide whether the safeguard works:
- Which court. The report does not say whether approval would come from a magistrate, a sessions judge, the High Court Division or the Cyber Tribunal. A magistrate who rubber-stamps police requests would offer little protection. A standard of review, such as a reasoned written order showing prima facie evidence of a specific offence, matters as much as the existence of review.
- Who counts as a journalist. The report refers to "any journalist," but online-only reporters, freelancers and citizen reporters are exactly the people most often charged. A definition tied to newsroom accreditation would exclude them.
- Arrest versus the offence itself. Court approval governs the process. It does not change what is criminal.
The offence is the larger problem
The Committee to Protect Journalists reviewed the draft amendments discussed at a 10 September consultation. It says they would create an offence for circulating "rumor" or "misinformation" online, punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a heavy fine. Material could fall foul if authorities deem it "unsubstantiated or unverified" and it causes public confusion, panic or unrest. CPJ adds that outlets could be convicted and courts could suspend or cancel a company's licence. Information Minister Andaleeve Rahman framed the aim as "stopping disorder on social media and protecting social harmony."
That standard is the central flaw. Reporting is almost always unverified at the moment of publication, because verification is the work that follows. Early accounts of a disaster, a corruption allegation or a police shooting are routinely incomplete and sometimes wrong. A law that criminalises "unverified" content gives prosecutors discretion over every fast-moving story. A judge reviewing an arrest request would still be applying an offence that treats the ordinary condition of news as a crime.
The evidence from the earlier laws points the same way. CPJ's Bangladesh page lists a 22 June 2026 alert on six journalists charged under the Cyber Security Act 2026 alongside criminal defamation and extortion counts. I could not confirm the underlying statute text for the arrest and blocking provisions, because the Act's PDF on the ICT Division's statute listing was not retrievable for this review. Readers should treat provision-level claims as provisional until the republished draft appears.
Platforms are the unexamined variable
The news report does not mention social media platforms. Yet the minister's stated target is disorder on social media. If the final text includes takedown or blocking duties for intermediaries, those would interact with the journalist safeguard in ways no one has yet analysed. A platform facing criminal exposure for hosting "unverified" material will remove first and ask later. That pushes the cost of error onto speech, and onto reporters who cannot reach readers by other routes.
A better design
The review process offers a chance to fix this. The expert panel, drawn from the information and ICT ministries, the Editors' Council and electronic media associations, is due to report in 7 to 15 days. The draft is then to be republished before going to cabinet and Parliament. Four changes would make the court-approval idea meaningful:
- Specify a superior-court or judge-level authority, with written reasons and a short deadline.
- Define "journalist" functionally, by the act of publishing news, not by accreditation.
- Replace "unverified" with a narrow, intent-based standard. Knowingly publishing a falsehood that causes imminent, specific harm is a much safer line than publishing something unverified.
- Impose no platform liability without a published, court-ordered, notice-based process and a right of appeal.
The minister has said the law will not be passed in haste. The test is whether the republished draft names the court, narrows the offence and addresses platforms, or whether it keeps a broad rumour offence behind a single procedural gate.