Bangladesh's draft Cyber Protection (Amendment) Act 2026 is the first major test of whether the post-transition government meant what it said when it scrapped the Digital Security Act's speech offences. Reporting indicates the draft would put new criminal penalties on defamation, 'demeaning' speech and 'rumours or unverified information'. It would also let the executive block content before any court has looked at it. Critics, including Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), say it brings back the machinery of the law it follows.
The case for the government
The government's concern is real and deserves a fair statement. Online harassment, especially of women and minors, is a documented harm. Viral falsehoods can inflame communal tension, and a state is entitled to act when they do. The draft's own Section 25 reportedly raises penalties for offences against women or minors to up to 10 years or Tk 40 lakh. Asia Times describes that provision. A cabinet committee chaired by the posts and telecommunications minister reviewed the draft on 16 July 2026, with the aim of 'protecting citizens' rights and ensuring a safer environment' (The Financial Express). Protecting people from abuse is a legitimate goal. The question is whether this draft does it in proportion.
What the draft reportedly does
According to the Asia Times analysis, the draft:
- Adds defamation, humiliation and bullying to Section 25 and lifts the maximum from 2 years and Tk 10 lakh to 5 years and Tk 20 lakh.
- Creates Section 26A, which criminalises 'unverified' information capable of causing confusion or social instability, with up to 10 years or Tk 40 lakh.
- Makes Section 25 offences cognizable, meaning arrest without a warrant, and brings some violations under the Mobile Court Act.
- Lets government agencies block or remove content judged defamatory or 'disrespectful to the state' without prior judicial approval. A tribunal review is allowed within three days afterwards.
Other reporting says the Information Ministry, law enforcement and the National Telecommunication Monitoring Centre would share enforcement. We could not independently confirm the 10 September consultation date reported by Civicus Monitor, and we have not seen the statute text itself. Everything here rests on press accounts of the draft.
The penalty ladder gives the game away
The clearest sign of misplaced priorities is the sentencing scale. By the Asia Times account, incitement to communal violence carries a maximum of 2 years, while spreading unverified information carries 10. A statute that punishes a careless post five times as harshly as deliberate incitement is not tracking harm. Its target is the ambiguity of 'unverified'. Every journalist works with information that is unverified at the moment of first reporting, and verification is what reporting is for. Punishing information that has not yet been verified conflates, in the words of critics quoted by the same article, 'false information with information not yet verified'.
TIB's Executive Director, Dr Iftekharuzzaman, said the draft 'creates scope for deliberate misinterpretation and misuse'. TIB points out that terms such as 'rumour', 'misinformation', 'defamatory' and 'insulting to the state' are defined broadly. It also flags a 28-member National Cyber Security Council with only two private-sector experts, both government-nominated, and 'good faith' immunity for officials (The Financial Express). Vague terms, a government-dominated oversight body and immunity for enforcers together mean that nothing structural stops misuse.
It reverses the 2025 repeal
In May 2025 the interim government issued the Cyber Security Ordinance, which removed nine sections of the 2023 Cyber Security Act (21, 24 to 29, 31 and 34). Those sections covered, among other things, defamation and false or threatening communications, and the ordinance annulled all pending cases under them (Prothom Alo). The 2026 draft rebuilds much of that terrain under new section numbers. The 2025 repeal rested on a view that criminal speech law had been used as a political weapon. Critics who call the draft a rebranded Digital Security Act are describing a pattern that Bangladeshi officials themselves acknowledged a year ago.
The surveillance context matters too. In a 28 July 2026 joint statement, eight organisations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 urged the government to create independent oversight and judicial authorisation for interception. The statement notes the abuses that resulted when such powers went unchecked (Tech Global Institute). Broad blocking and arrest powers, with review only afterwards, repeat that design.
The international benchmark
Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a party, allows restrictions on expression only where they are 'provided by law' and 'necessary' for the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health or morals (OHCHR, ICCPR text). A ten-year term for unverified information, and removal on executive say-so, are hard to defend as the necessary and least restrictive means. Protecting reputation can be done through civil remedies, and protecting the public from fraud and threats through narrowly defined offences with intent and demonstrable-harm elements.
What proportionate reform looks like
- Drop Section 26A. Where a falsehood causes specific, provable harm such as fraud or incitement, existing offences cover it. A separate crime for 'unverified' content has no workable definition.
- Keep defamation civil. Decriminalisation was the point of the 2025 repeal.
- Require prior judicial authorisation for blocking, or at least a transparent, time-limited process with published reasons and a right to restore content.
- Consult broadly. Reports that civil society groups were left out of the consultation are, if accurate, a reason to reopen it.
Bangladesh has a real chance to build a cyber framework that protects women and children, deters fraud and keeps the internet open. This draft, as reported, instead hands the state a discretionary tool that will chill the journalists, researchers and ordinary users a digital economy depends on. The consultation is the moment to fix it.