Introduction

If any person deliberately publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmits or

causes to be published or transmitted in the website or in electronic form any material
which is fake and obscene or its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person
who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter
contained or embodied in it, or causes to deteriorate or creates possibility to deteriorate law
and order prejudice the image of the State or person or causes to hurt or may hurt religious
belie for instigate against any person or organization, then this activity of his will be
regarded as an offence.
Section 57 of The Information & Communication Technology Act,
2006
The concern section of the Information & Communication Technology Act, 2006 stated,
“If any person deliberately publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted
in the website or in electronic form any material which is fake and obscene or its effect is
such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant
circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it or causes to
deteriorate or creates possibility to deteriorate law and order, prejudice the image of the
State or person or causes to hurt or may hurt religious belief or instigate against any person
or organization, then this activity of his will be regarded as an offence. In providing
punishment it says, „Whoever commits offence under sub-section (1) of this section he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with
fine which may extend to Taka one crore.

Description of section 57
a person commits a crime when he or she intentionally publishes or broadcasts something
which is false and obscene by reading, watching or listening to the material in a particular
condition such that a person may be inspired to do something which causes defamation,
undermines law and order or creates a possibility of doing so, distorts the image of a person

1
or the state, hurts people's religious sentiment or creates the possibility of doing so, or
instigates people against a particular person or a group.
For committing such a crime, a person can be imprisoned for up to 10 years along with a
fine up to Tk 1 crore (Tk 10 million). The amendment made to this section in 2013 made
this offence cognizable and non-bailable which means a police officer or investigation
officer could arrest someone for this kind of offence without any warrant and the person
has to stay in custody until the disbursement of the case.

Problems of section 57
According to statistics provided by prosecutors of the Cyber Security Tribunal, around 740
cases have been filed across the country under the ICT Act in the last four years, with 60%
of them lodged under the controversial Section 57.
The increasing number of Section 57 cases has raised concerns that it is being misused to
harass people. There were only three such cases filed in 2013, but this number has increased
exponentially each year since with a record 319 already filed for 2017.
Numerous journalists, students and teachers have been imprisoned under Section 57, which
has been called “draconian” for its interpretation and implementation by law enforcement
agencies.
“The issue is not whether Section 57 is staying or if it is being accommodated as section
19 of the new law,” said journalist Probir Sikder, who is himself facing a case under the
act. “My view is that no interference should be made on the freedom of expression of the
people. The law is being used to harass people.”

Most other parts of the text are understood but section-57(1) of the Act outlines the scope
of Cyber Crime and appears most confusing. From the text of the Act it appears that even
any innocent online posting can become a Cyber Crime, if the authority believes that it has
provoked a third person to become derailed or dishonest. In other words, the crime doesn’t
depend on the offensive or illicit nature of the posted material. It depends on the readers‟
or viewers‟ personality and attitude. The question is, if a crime-prone person becomes
2
derailed or dishonest by watching or reading a seemingly honest content then why an
innocent content provider will be responsible for that crime-prone person’s act? Need an
expert opinion from any lawyer to make sure that we aren’t missing something here. On
the other hand the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 is far more
ambiguous that leaves unprecedented and unchecked power at the hands of the „authority‟.
According to article-57(2), such offender can be punished with a sentence of up to ten years
imprisonment and a fine up to Taka one crore. Since Cyber Crime is being treated as a
serious offence, the nature and definition of the crime needs to be unambiguous, transparent
and clear in its expression. The ICT Act contains a number of vague, imprecise and
overbroad provisions that serve to criminalize the use of computers for a wide range of
activities in contravention of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to
receive and impart information, protected under international law. Although the right to
freedom of information is not absolute, there the restrictions contemplated under the Act
do not fall within the scope of exceptions permissible under international law, including
Bangladesh’s treaty obligations. Section-57 of the ICT Act criminalized publishing or
transmitting or causing to publish or transmit any material which is fake and obscene or its
effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it or cause
to deteriorate or create possibility to deteriorate law and order, prejudice the image of the
State or person or cause to hurt or may hurt religious belief or instigate against any person
or organization, then this activity of his will be regarded as an offence. This provision is
incompatible with Bangladesh’s obligations under Article-19 of the ICCPR. The offences
prescribed are vague and overbroad, the restrictions imposed on freedom of opinion and
expression go beyond what is permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR and the
restrictions are not necessary and proportional to achieve a legitimate purpose.
According to different professors, senior journalists, jurist and lawyer Section 57 of the
ICT Act seizing the freedom of expression as provided in our constitution and UDHR as
before discussed both articles. This section let the wrong doer who were pulled up in public
via news in papers and other news websites by their brave journalists filing suit against the

3
journalist though it is true or false is a long term matter of judgment or prosecution. And
most vaguely Section 9 of the ICT Act made the ICT security authority to arrest and search
without any warrant. This Section 57 & 19 is one of the powerful destroyer of freedom of
expression and privacy of common people and the journalists and it is also harassing them
somehow. The punishment is so long and fine is too much to repay for such an offence. It
is a matter of lack of concern of our Law Administration Authority that they are not taking
enough steps to sole such a big mistake they made. Section 57 & 19 of ICT Act is greatly
need proper changes so that no undesirable conflict arises here to ruin or harass someone’s
life. The punishment & the fine should be lesser as recommended by the appropriate
authority. The Interpretation of Statutes Act provides that “which law in force in particular
time shall be granted and executed as the manner described their”

Concluding Remarks & Recommendations

Freedom of expression is an important indicator of a democratic society and development.
If freedom of expression is prevail in a country or society, other democratic rights and
freedoms will automatically be ensured.
1. If the government wants to keep it, there should be rules of procedure specifying how
the act would be applied until then, the law should not be enforced.
2. The concerned Ministry (ICT), has yet to enact the rules of procedure, there is a
possibility that the law will be misused. As soon as possible it should enact rules of
procedure regarding this section. In the absence of the rules of procedure, the law should
be applied cautiously.
3. This section has to be erased from the concerned Act as it has gone much beyond the
reasonable restrictions put by the constitution on freedom of speech. Act is adopted to
promote and protect human rights not to violate these.
4. Law enforcing agencies inter alia police should be guided properly in enforcing this
section. Without warrant authority is one kind of blank license to them that should be
rethinking.

4
5. Section-57 of the ICT Act, 2006 is a clear violation of the rights enshrined in article-
3949 of the constitution of Bangladesh. That‟s why provision should be amended and
should be making clear as per the constitutional guarantee prevail and international
obligation of the state remains protected.
6. Any national censorship authorized body may be created through proper law but such
kind of blank authorizing law should be erased for the better development of democracy.
7. Citizens should be made properly educated and aware of writing and posting anything
in the form of electronic contents that may affect anyone‟s religious belief.
8. Hard law is violated immensely. Going through this experience of the history penalty
provided under this section may be reconsidered, amended therefore and new form of
punishment may be provided.
9. This section should be clarified properly, so that the social media user can maintain
social communication without any sort of fear and threat of arrest, and
10. As a modern welfare state, peoples‟ will should be honoured first. Only the good will
of the people can be the ultimate solution in this regard.
By exercising the freedom, people can participate in decision-making through free access
to information and ideas. To understand the presence of freedom of expression and right to
information, we need to understand the local political context, history and cultures.
Bangladesh is politically a highly polarized and divided country. The guarantees of the
rights do not depend only on the relevant laws, but social, political and cultural processes.
Despite presence of all difficulties, it can be argued that there is certain level of freedom
of expression in Bangladesh than any other developing countries. This section is not
compatible with many international obligation under several international covenant
particularly Article-19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
which Bangladesh ratified on 6 September 2000. The offences prescribed under this section
are vague and overbroad; the restrictions imposed on freedom of opinion and expression
go beyond what is permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR and the restrictions are
not necessary and proportional to achieve a legitimate purpose as well. The Government
of Bangladesh must repeal or amend the Section-57 of the Information and Communication

5
Technology Act, 2006 because it is being used to assault freedom of expression and
freedom from arbitrary detention. This should be done for ensuring rule of law, rule of
justice, and the stability of democratic process and establishment of long term democratic
culture in Bangladesh

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2021%20Issue1/Version-
2/L021126271.
https://futrlaw.org/section-57-freedom-of-speech-balance/
https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2017/11/29/controversial-section-57-
http://techworldbd24.com/detail.php?id=2027