Only three months after the enactment of the Cyber Protection Act 2026, the Bangladesh government is already moving to tighten its grip on digital spaces. With plans to push a revised bill through the upcoming parliamentary session, the administration intends to introduce some of the harshest penalties yet for those accused of spreading online rumors or disinformation. By targeting the digital ecosystem so soon after the initial law was passed, the government is signaling that it considers the current regulatory framework insufficient to handle the rapid evolution of online communication and the rising influence of AI-generated content in the country’s public discourse.
At the heart of these proposed changes is the creation of Section 26A, a sweeping provision that criminalizes the publication of unverified rumors or intentional disinformation. The stakes for citizens are incredibly high; anyone found guilty under this new section could face a staggering 10-year prison sentence, a fine of up to Tk40 lakh, or both. Government policymakers maintain that these measures are a necessary defense against the modern scourge of malicious social media campaigns. They point specifically to the emerging threat of AI, which is increasingly being used to manufacture deepfake videos, altered audio, and misleading images that have the potential to destabilize public order or ruin personal reputations.
The amendments do not stop at rumors; they also expand the scope of Section 25, which deals with online “defamation” and “disparagement.” Under the new revisions, the legal definition of these offenses is set to become stricter, carrying a baseline penalty of five years in prison and a Tk20 lakh fine. However, the government has added a protective layer for vulnerable groups, stipulating that if the content in question targets a woman or a minor under the age of 18, the penalties double to 10 years in prison or a Tk40 lakh fine. A senior Home Ministry official clarified that the primary objective is to safeguard the personal integrity of government officials, politicians, and various professionals from what they describe as “character assassination.”
To ensure these rules are followed, the government is centralizing its enforcement power. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, working in tandem with specialized agencies like the National Telecommunication Monitoring Centre (NTMC), will be responsible for overseeing the digital landscape and implementing these new provisions. By consolidating this authority, the government is creating a powerful oversight apparatus, ensuring that the state has the tools necessary to monitor, identify, and penalize content that it deems problematic. This move signifies a shift toward a more proactive, centralized approach to digital content regulation, leaving little room for ambiguity in how laws are applied.
Unsurprisingly, the announcement has triggered a wave of concern among digital rights advocates, tech experts, and legal analysts who view the legislation as a potential overreach of state authority. Miraj Ahmed Chowdhury, Managing Director of Digitally Right, is among those sounding the alarm, cautioning that without clear definitions and judicial oversight, such a law is prone to widespread misuse. Critics fear that the power to label speech as “defamatory” or “misinformation” will inevitably be used as a blunt instrument to silence dissenting voices, intimidate journalists, and discourage the public from engaging in meaningful online discourse regarding government conduct.
Ultimately, these amendments have reignited a familiar debate in Bangladesh, with many observers noting that the new bill bears a striking resemblance to the controversial Digital Security Act of the previous Awami League administration. As the country moves toward what it calls “cyber protection,” skeptics warn that the legislation may do more harm than good, further damaging Bangladesh’s reputation on global online freedom indices. While the government frames these changes as a shield against digital chaos, the underlying tension remains: at what point does the pursuit of state-mandated order cross the line into the dismantling of fundamental democratic rights? As parliament prepares to debate this legislation, the nation watches with bated breath to see where the balance between security and liberty will fall.