Constitutionality of 2 DSA sections: HC starts hearing on rule
The High Court today started hearing on a rule which it issued three years back questioning the constitutionality of section 25 and 31 of the controversial Digital Security Act, 2018.
The relevant sections criminalise the publishing of false and intimidating information -- contributing to the deterioration of law and order -- and detail the penalties for offenders.
According to section 25 (1) of the act, "If any person using a website or any digital device (a) deliberately or knowingly distributes any information or data that is attacking or intimidating in nature; or if a person publishes or distributes any information despite knowing that it is false to irritate, humiliate, defame or embarrass or to discredit a person, (b) damages the image and reputation of the State or spreads confusion or with the same purpose publishes or distributes fully or partially distorted information or data despite knowing that it is false, and if anyone assists in such action, then all such actions of the individual will be considered a crime".
Section 31 reads, "If a person deliberately publishes or broadcasts via a website or any digital platform, anything that creates enmity, hatred or acrimony among different classes or communities, or upsets communal harmony, or creates unrest or chaos, or causes or begins to cause deterioration in law and order, then that activity of the said person will be considered a crime."
Today, the HC bench of Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Justice Kazi Ebadoth Hossain began the hearing with the writ petitioners' lawyer Imran A Siddique placing an argument on the rule. It adjourned the hearing till Thursday.
Following a writ petition, another HC bench led by Justice Sheikh Hassan Arif on February 24, 2020, issued the rule asking the government to explain why the two sections of the DSA should not be declared unconstitutional.
The petitioners are Dhaka University teachers Mohammad Ismail, Md Kamruzzaman and Md Rafiqul Islam; journalist Mohammad Abdullah; Supreme Court lawyers Md Asad Uddin, Md Asaduzzaman, Md Zobaidur Rahman, Md Mohiuddin Molla and Md Mujahidul Islam.
They submitted the petition to the HC on January 19, 2020, saying the two sections of the DSA are hampering freedom of expression and thought.
The petition said by imposing a blanket prohibition on, as detailed in section 31, the publication of materials which may create hostility between communities or cause unrest or disorder or cause or is likely to cause any deterioration in the law and order situation violates the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 39 of the constitution.
The sections have conferred arbitrary and uncontrolled powers upon the executive and the prosecuting authority to determine whether a particular act satisfies the vague and unspecified ingredients of offence and therefore, the sections are liable to be struck down as being in violation of the constitution, the petition said.
Lawyers Imran A Siddique and Shishir Monir appeared for the writ petitioners, while Deputy Attorney General Sk Shaifuzzaman represented the state during the hearing today.
Comments