Section 57 of ICT Act

HC rejects �premature� petition

A High Court (HC) bench yesterday rejected a writ petition filed challenging the legality of section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act.
On the other hand, another bench of the HC started the hearing on an another writ petition filed over the same section.
The HC bench comprising Justice Quazi Reza-ul Haque and Justice Abu Taher Saifur Rahman rejected a writ petition saying that the petition is ‘premature’ as the government is taking steps over the matter.
Advocate Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the writ petition with the HC on Thursday challenging the legality of section 57 and 86 of the ICT act.
Meanwhile, the HC bench comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Kazi Md Ejarul Haque Akond adjourned till (Monday) today 2.15pm the hearing on another writ petition filed challenging the legality of  section 57 of the ICT act.

During yesterday’s hearing, Barrister Emran Siddiq, counsel for the petitioner, said the section 57 of the ICT act has provided ‘unfettered discretion’ for the administration, which was contradictory to the constitution.
He also said that one person might be treated differently under different laws for the same offence. It is arbitrary and discriminatory, and it squarely violates articles 27, 31, 32 and 39 of the constitution, he added.
He also said that the maximum punishment for the crimes to be dealt under Section 57 is 14 years jail while it is two-year imprisonment under the Penal Code and seven-year jail under the pornography act. Hence, the government can pick and choose any law to try any accused, he added.
After Siddiq’s submission, Deputy Attorney General Amit Talukder sought time from the court saying that Attorney General Mahbubey Alam will place the argument over the matter. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till Monday (today).
Zakir Hossain, an accused in a case filed under this section with a cyber crime tribunal in Dhaka, filed the writ petition with the HC on Wednesday praying to declare the section 57 of the ICT act unconstitutional.
The petition also sought an HC rule on the government to explain why Section 57 of the ICT Act, 2006 (as amended in 2013) should not be declared unconstitutional.
It also sought HC order to stay the trial proceedings of the case filed against the petitioner Zakir Hosain under the act.
Ex-wife of Zakir Hossain filed a case on July 24 against him with Pallabi Police Station in the capital accusing him of posting her picture in facebook and writing post in facebook against her.
The trial court granted bail to Zakir in connection with the case on August 10 and Zakir filed a writ petition with the HC on August 26 challenging the section 57 of the ICT act.
The ICT Act was passed in 2006 and was amended twice, in 2009 and 2013. In the last amendment, offences under Section 57 were made non-bailable and the maximum penalty was extended to 14-year imprisonment.
 Rights activists have been vocal against these legal provisions, saying this effectively muzzles the freedom of speech and expression.
 The forum of print media editors, the Editors’ Council, has also demanded the scrapping of Section 57.

 

Section 57 of ICT Act

HC rejects �premature� petition

A High Court (HC) bench yesterday rejected a writ petition filed challenging the legality of section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act. On the other hand, another bench of the HC started the hearing on an another writ petition filed over the same section. The HC bench comprising Justice Quazi Reza-ul Haque and Justice Abu Taher Saifur Rahman rejected a writ petition saying that the petition is premature as the government is taking steps over the matter. Advocate Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the writ petition with the HC on Thursday challenging the legality of section 57 and 86 of the ICT act. Meanwhile, the HC bench comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Kazi Md Ejarul Haque Akond adjourned till (Monday) today 2.15pm the hearing on another writ petition filed challenging the legality of section 57 of the ICT act. During yesterdays hearing, Barrister Emran Siddiq, counsel for the petitioner, said the section 57 of the ICT act has provided unfettered discretion for the administration, which was contradictory to the constitution. He also said that one person might be treated differently under different laws for the same offence. It is arbitrary and discriminatory, and it squarely violates articles 27, 31, 32 and 39 of the constitution, he added. He also said that the maximum punishment for the crimes to be dealt under Section 57 is 14 years jail while it is two-year imprisonment under the Penal Code and seven-year jail under the pornography act. Hence, the government can pick and choose any law to try any accused, he added. After Siddiqs submission, Deputy Attorney General Amit Talukder sought time from the court saying that Attorney General Mahbubey Alam will place the argument over the matter. Later, the court adjourned the hearing till Monday (today). Zakir Hossain, an accused in a case filed under this section with a cyber crime tribunal in Dhaka, filed the writ petition with the HC on Wednesday praying to declare the section 57 of the ICT act unconstitutional. The petition also sought an HC rule on the government to explain why Section 57 of the ICT Act, 2006 (as amended in 2013) should not be declared unconstitutional. It also sought HC order to stay the trial proceedings of the case filed against the petitioner Zakir Hosain under the act. Ex-wife of Zakir Hossain filed a case on July 24 against him with Pallabi Police Station in the capital accusing him of posting her picture in facebook and writing post in facebook against her. The trial court granted bail to Zakir in connection with the case on August 10 and Zakir filed a writ petition with the HC on August 26 challenging the section 57 of the ICT act. The ICT Act was passed in 2006 and was amended twice, in 2009 and 2013. In the last amendment, offences under Section 57 were made non-bailable and the maximum penalty was extended to 14-year imprisonment. Rights activists have been vocal against these legal provisions, saying this effectively muzzles the freedom of speech and expression. The forum of print media editors, the Editors Council, has also demanded the scrapping of Section 57.