Furor over Section 57 of ICT Act

Civil society demands immediate repealing of this ‘draconian law’

Although human rights activists, national and international journalist organisations, and legal experts have all along been demanding that the controversial Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act be repealed, the government is yet to do so. Instead, it has arrested many people, including journalists, in cases filed against them under the section.
The debate has intensified after the arrest of Ahmed Raju, executive editor of natunsomoy.com. He was picked up on April 30 in connection with a case filed under the ICT Act. The Dhaka metropolitan magistrate, AKM Moin Uddin Siddique, put him on one-day remand after rejecting his bail petition yesterday.
Walton, a consumer electronics company, filed the case against Raju and three others for publishing a report against the firm on natunsomoy.com.
Talking to this correspondent, top legal experts said Section 57 of the ICT Act is a "tool of repression" and has been enacted to "harass" people. They emphasised the need for removal of the section to reduce "harassment of common people".
The experts also said that persons with vested interests have been abusing the Act by taking advantage of loopholes in it.
According to Section 57, if a person deliberately publishes any material in the electronic form that causes deterioration of law and order, prejudices the image of the state or a person, or hurts religious beliefs, the offender will be punished with a maximum of 14 years and a minimum of seven years of imprisonment. It will also be considered as a non-bailable offence.
Meanwhile, Law Minister Anisul Huq yesterday said Section 57 will be scrapped as a new digital security law was in the offing.
“The new Digital Security Act will clarify what section 57 is supposed to represent. It
will for once and for all prove that our government has no intentions to clamp down on freedom of speech,” he said at an award ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of ‘Khelaghar’ at Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy.
“The law ministry is working on vetting the new Digital Security Act draft. We will collaborate with several state ministers to work on a revised draft to introduce it as a bill,” added the minister.
Monjurul Ahsan Bulbul, president of Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists (BFUJ), told The Independent that the authorities concerned have been misusing the section 57 of the ICT Act from the enactment of the law.
“The government has assured us to repeal the section 57 of the ICT Act by enacting a new law named ‘Digital Security Act, 2016. But, unfortunately this law is yet to be enacted and the repression of the media person is not being stopped,” he said.
“We urged the government to enact the digital security act as early as possible and hoped the government would not incorporate such controversial section in that law,” he noted.
Eminent rights activist Sultana Kamal said the section is so vague that law enforcers can interpret it as they will to arrest anyone anytime. “The Act is contradictory to the Constitution because Section 57 robs us of our right to freedom of speech. So, we want it repealed,” she added.
Top constitutional expert Dr Shahdeen Malik urged the government to remove Section 57.
“The clause is taking the country back to the medieval ages. I had hoped that Parliament would not pass the amendment to the Information and Communication Technology Act-2006, as Section 57 has made it "ridiculous". But unfortunately, it was passed by Parliament. The government should remove Section 57, considering the greater interest of the people,” he said.
A third party can file cases in most of the incidents, which is against the spirit of the rule of law, he noted.
Punishment for lying was abolished from the world 200 years ago, but the government is creating such a law again, which is against the secular concept of the state, the expert added.
Barrister Tanjib-ul Alam told The Independent that in no other country does a Facebook posting or posting in any other social media warrant a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 14 years' prison sentence. The ICT Act must be amended, he said.
Referring to the earlier arrest of journalist Probir Sikder under the law, Tanjib said a third person filed the case against him by misusing the law. He also pointed out that no scope has been kept in the law to relate the punishment to the magnitude of the crime.
Freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution is controlled by the law, he added.
Tanjib also said that the original ICT Act already served to undermine human rights, but the new amendments make the law nothing short of "draconian". If the government does not bring an amendment immediately, the common people will be harassed repeatedly, he added.
He further said that the government must repeal or make changes in the amended ICT Act because it is being used to curb freedom of expression and freedom from arbitrary detention.
Barrister Jotyrmoy Barua said most of the time a third person files cases under the Act, which is against the spirit of the law. Cases filed under this Act should be investigated thoroughly as most of them are not filed properly, he added.
Barua echoed the views of Malik and Alam, saying that Section 57 should be removed for the sake of the people.
Barrister Sara Hossain said many cases have been filed under this Act in the meantime and some people have already been sentenced to imprisonment.
“If anyone is defamed by a Facebook status or in any other way through the Internet, sufferers must file cases against the accused. But we have seen that mostly it is a third person who files a case under this Act, which is illegal,” she noted.
Renowned journalist Probir Sikdar had to go to jail in connection with a case filed against him under the Act.
Siddiqur Rahman, editor of the education-based website DainikShiksha.com, was arrested on September 1 over a news item. Rahman was arrested after Prof. Fahima Khatun, wife of Awami League parliamentarian Obaidur Muktadir and a sister of food minister Kamrul Islam, filed a case under Section 57 of the ICT Act.
In March 2015, the Indian supreme court struck down almost a similar section, terming it unconstitutional. The court observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, two cardinal pillars of democracy.
Section 66A read: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."
The section had been widely misused by the police in India to arrest innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political issues and political leaders on social networking sites, according to media reports.
The Indian supreme court said the section has to be erased from the law books as it has gone much beyond the reasonable restrictions put by the Constitution on freedom of speech.
The Indian court added that the section was vaguely worded, which allowed its misuse by the police.

Furor over Section 57 of ICT Act

Civil society demands immediate repealing of this draconian law

Although human rights activists, national and international journalist organisations, and legal experts have all along been demanding that the controversial Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act be repealed, the government is yet to do so. Instead, it has arrested many people, including journalists, in cases filed against them under the section. The debate has intensified after the arrest of Ahmed Raju, executive editor of natunsomoy.com. He was picked up on April 30 in connection with a case filed under the ICT Act. The Dhaka metropolitan magistrate, AKM Moin Uddin Siddique, put him on one-day remand after rejecting his bail petition yesterday. Walton, a consumer electronics company, filed the case against Raju and three others for publishing a report against the firm on natunsomoy.com. Talking to this correspondent, top legal experts said Section 57 of the ICT Act is a tool of repression and has been enacted to harass people. They emphasised the need for removal of the section to reduce harassment of common people. The experts also said that persons with vested interests have been abusing the Act by taking advantage of loopholes in it. According to Section 57, if a person deliberately publishes any material in the electronic form that causes deterioration of law and order, prejudices the image of the state or a person, or hurts religious beliefs, the offender will be punished with a maximum of 14 years and a minimum of seven years of imprisonment. It will also be considered as a non-bailable offence. Meanwhile, Law Minister Anisul Huq yesterday said Section 57 will be scrapped as a new digital security law was in the offing. The new Digital Security Act will clarify what section 57 is supposed to represent. It will for once and for all prove that our government has no intentions to clamp down on freedom of speech, he said at an award ceremony marking the 65th anniversary of Khelaghar at Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy. The law ministry is working on vetting the new Digital Security Act draft. We will collaborate with several state ministers to work on a revised draft to introduce it as a bill, added the minister. Monjurul Ahsan Bulbul, president of Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists (BFUJ), told The Independent that the authorities concerned have been misusing the section 57 of the ICT Act from the enactment of the law. The government has assured us to repeal the section 57 of the ICT Act by enacting a new law named Digital Security Act, 2016. But, unfortunately this law is yet to be enacted and the repression of the media person is not being stopped, he said. We urged the government to enact the digital security act as early as possible and hoped the government would not incorporate such controversial section in that law, he noted. Eminent rights activist Sultana Kamal said the section is so vague that law enforcers can interpret it as they will to arrest anyone anytime. The Act is contradictory to the Constitution because Section 57 robs us of our right to freedom of speech. So, we want it repealed, she added. Top constitutional expert Dr Shahdeen Malik urged the government to remove Section 57. The clause is taking the country back to the medieval ages. I had hoped that Parliament would not pass the amendment to the Information and Communication Technology Act-2006, as Section 57 has made it ridiculous. But unfortunately, it was passed by Parliament. The government should remove Section 57, considering the greater interest of the people, he said. A third party can file cases in most of the incidents, which is against the spirit of the rule of law, he noted. Punishment for lying was abolished from the world 200 years ago, but the government is creating such a law again, which is against the secular concept of the state, the expert added. Barrister Tanjib-ul Alam told The Independent that in no other country does a Facebook posting or posting in any other social media warrant a minimum of seven years and a maximum of 14 years prison sentence. The ICT Act must be amended, he said. Referring to the earlier arrest of journalist Probir Sikder under the law, Tanjib said a third person filed the case against him by misusing the law. He also pointed out that no scope has been kept in the law to relate the punishment to the magnitude of the crime. Freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution is controlled by the law, he added. Tanjib also said that the original ICT Act already served to undermine human rights, but the new amendments make the law nothing short of draconian. If the government does not bring an amendment immediately, the common people will be harassed repeatedly, he added. He further said that the government must repeal or make changes in the amended ICT Act because it is being used to curb freedom of expression and freedom from arbitrary detention. Barrister Jotyrmoy Barua said most of the time a third person files cases under the Act, which is against the spirit of the law. Cases filed under this Act should be investigated thoroughly as most of them are not filed properly, he added. Barua echoed the views of Malik and Alam, saying that Section 57 should be removed for the sake of the people. Barrister Sara Hossain said many cases have been filed under this Act in the meantime and some people have already been sentenced to imprisonment. If anyone is defamed by a Facebook status or in any other way through the Internet, sufferers must file cases against the accused. But we have seen that mostly it is a third person who files a case under this Act, which is illegal, she noted. Renowned journalist Probir Sikdar had to go to jail in connection with a case filed against him under the Act. Siddiqur Rahman, editor of the education-based website DainikShiksha.com, was arrested on September 1 over a news item. Rahman was arrested after Prof. Fahima Khatun, wife of Awami League parliamentarian Obaidur Muktadir and a sister of food minister Kamrul Islam, filed a case under Section 57 of the ICT Act. In March 2015, the Indian supreme court struck down almost a similar section, terming it unconstitutional. The court observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, two cardinal pillars of democracy. Section 66A read: Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. The section had been widely misused by the police in India to arrest innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political issues and political leaders on social networking sites, according to media reports. The Indian supreme court said the section has to be erased from the law books as it has gone much beyond the reasonable restrictions put by the Constitution on freedom of speech. The Indian court added that the section was vaguely worded, which allowed its misuse by the police.