Taimur Alam Khondaker :
Under a notification dated 30/9/2019 issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, the Digital Security Act (DSA)’ 2018 has come into force through out the country. The description of offence and punishment has been described in its Section 17 to 38. The Section 39 to 49 has described the method and procedure regarding investigation of allegation and complain against some one, In spite of that Code of Criminal Procedure’ 1898 applicable for investigation of cases under Digital Security Act’ 2018.
That it is the main exception of this Act is that there is double punishment if there is repetition of the same offence. On the other hand there is a provision for pecuniary punishment embodied in this Act. This is indeed a bad side of law, as because the rich man can face the law in exchange of money. Most of the section of this Act is non-bailable except sections 18, 20, 25, 29 and 47 of this Act.
That think tanker of the country remark the law as act of “Black Laws” as because this Act has mad an obstruction to freedom of expression, specially freedom of newspapers and mass media which is contradictory to the article 39 of the constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. The Article 39 is stated-
(1) Freedom of thought and conscience is guaranteed.
(2) Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence –
(a) the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression; and
(b) freedom of the press, are guaranteed.
The constitution is the output of the liberation war of 1971 earned with blood of millions of people. But implementation of this Act is against the sprit of Liberation war.
Section 51 of the Act expresses to take opinion of expert in computer science, cyber forensic, electronic communication, data security and in related other fields.
Section 52 of the Act described the Time Limit for disposal of the concerned case. But this section does not speak about the specific time for conclusion of trial. Sub-section (1) stated that trial should be concluded with in 180 working days and if it fails to conclude the trial with in 180 days, the sub-section permitted the Court to extend time-limit further 90 days with recording the reason behind it. And the sub-section further stated that if the trial could not concluded with the time limit specified in sub-section 1 and 2, the trial court with intimation to High Court may extend the time-limit up-to-unlimited period. So, it appears that there is no limitation of trial the cases under this Act. As such the accused shall have to wait for long time for his release from the case.
That regarding time limit of trial is unlimited, so it can be said that the section 52 does not given a specific time for conclusion of trial, which is against the sprit of speedy trial.
The constitution of Bangladesh has granted fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and Justice for every Citizen. But The Digital Security Act’ 2018 has deprived the Citizen from the constitutional right. That in the 3rd para of Preamble of the constitution is stated as follows-
“Further pledging that it shall be a fundamental aim of the State to realise through the democratic process a socialist society, free from exploitation, a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political, economic and social, will be secured for all citizens.”
After liberation the then Government had enacted a law under the name and style “The Special Power Act’ 1974” by which the government was empowered to take any individual in custody by way order of detention for an unlimited period with out lodging any case with specific allegation against a particular person. No court except High Court Division only could interfere challenging the detention order under article 102 of the constitution. Under the strength of the said Act the then government had confined their political rival in custody for an unlimited period without being any specific allegation. The said law called by the intellectual people as Black-Law. Similarly the journalist and in intellectuals also empathizes on the law as a Black-Law which is against the sprit of democracy as well as and curtail of the fundamental right of the people, especially it has curtailed the freedom of press. Freedom of Press is one of the important ingredients of democracy and it is to be mentioned that without democracy, the outturn of the independency is to be meaningless. To uphold the constitutional right narrated in article 39 of the constitution, it is necessary to abolish the Digital Security Act. On the other hand, the press should be very much careful and responsible to make a publication regarding any matter whatsoever. That reality and truth should be on focus under the expression of every journalist. There is far difference in between real journalism and yellow journalism. It is seen obliviously in our society that there are some person in the filed of the press who used to make false and fake news against some individuals to harass him. In spite of that, a harsh law like Digital Security Act can not be supported by the civil society. It is an instrument in the hand of government to stop the mouth of press when and whatever the government machinery is desired. On demand of the mass public, one day this black law will be abolished and repealed if the war to establish democracy is prevailed. As because the first document regarding human rights was declared by the United Nations under the name style “The Universal Declaration of Human Right’ of 1948 where it was recognized the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human kind as being the foundation of freedom, justice and peace. So freedom of expression is an inherent and universal self evident of human rights — an acquired right got from the nature by birth.
(The writer is Advocate,
Appellate Division).
