Sections 57 (1), 86: HC terms writ petition premature
The High Court today rejected a petition that challenged the legality of sections 57 (1) and 86 of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) act, terming it premature as the government is considering some steps regarding the law.
According to the Section 57 (1), any person accused of publishing derogatory information and obscene in the online media, can be awarded imprisonment up to 14 years and fined up to Tk 1 crore.
On the other hand, the Section 86 of the act states that the government employees cannot be accused of the offences under the section 57 (1), petitioner Eunus Ali Akond told The Daily Star.
A rough translation of section 57 (1) says: “If any person deliberately publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the website or in any other electronic form any material which is false and obscene and if anyone sees, hears or reads it having regard to all relevant circumstances, its effect is such as to influence the reader to become dishonest or corrupt, 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 organisation, then this activity will be regarded as an offence.”
The HC bench of Justice Quazi Reza-Ul-Haque and Justice Abu Taher Md Saifur Rahman rejected the petition terming the petition as premature, saying that the government was considering taking some steps regarding the law.
Deputy Attorney General Tapos Kumar Biswas told The Daily that petitioner Eunus could not place any appropriate argument supporting his plea before the HC bench.
The court told Eunus that he can move another writ petition challenging the sections of the ICT law if he can mention any new ground on the matter, Taposh added.
On August 26, Eunus sent legal notice to the secretary to the ministry of law, cabinet, information and communication technology and, the information saying that the two sections of the law are discriminatory and unconstitutional. The next day, he filed the petition with the HC.