10 Years for Rumors as Cyber Law Tightens

Dhaka: Bangladesh is proposing sweeping changes to its cyber law, including tougher penalties for rumors, misinformation, defamation and bullying, while also expanding the government’s ability to remove or block online content.

The proposed Cyber Security (Amendment) Act, 2026 was discussed at a consultation meeting held on 10 September 2026, Thursday, at 10:00am at the conference room of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Building 6, Room 1201.

A comparative review of the draft shows new offences, expanded definitions, tougher penalties, changes to the trial system and a proposed framework for setting deadlines for technology companies to remove or block online content.

Up to 10 years for rumors and misinformation

A new Section 26A has been proposed to criminalize the publication or promotion of rumors and misinformation in cyberspace.

The proposed punishment is up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 40 lakh, or both.

The draft defines a rumor as unsupported or unverified information, news or claims that cause, or are likely to cause, public confusion, panic, excitement or social instability.

Misinformation is defined as false, distorted or misleading information intentionally created, published or promoted to mislead, deceive or harm a person, the public, an institution or the state.

Defamation and bullying get new definitions

Section 25 is also being expanded. Its title would include “defamatory information” alongside sexual harassment, blackmailing and obscene-content offences.

The existing provision covers intentional creation, acquisition, storage, transmission, publication or promotion of harmful or intimidating information for blackmailing, sexual harassment, revenge pornography, digital child sexual abuse material and sextortion.

The maximum punishment under Section 25(2) would rise from two years to five years’ imprisonment, while the maximum fine would increase from Tk 10 lakh to Tk 20 lakh.

Where the victim is a woman or a child below 18, the proposed maximum punishment would rise from five to 10 years and the fine from Tk 20 lakh to Tk 40 lakh.

The draft also introduces new definitions of “defamation” and “humiliation.” The proposed definition of defamation refers to Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860, and covers false, distorted, misleading, insulting or harmful information, statements, audio, video, audiovisual material, still images and graphics intended to damage a person’s reputation, status or character.

It explicitly includes material digitally captured or edited, as well as content prepared, edited or altered using artificial intelligence.

A new definition of bullying also covers intentional, planned and repeated physical, verbal, social, digital or other conduct by a person or group using actual or perceived power, influence or dominance, causing physical or mental harm, distress, fear, social exclusion, isolation or loneliness.

AI-generated content enters the legal framework

One of the notable changes to Section 25 is the direct inclusion of artificial intelligence.

The proposed language covers content captured, edited, created or altered through AI, meaning AI-generated or AI-manipulated material could fall within the relevant cybercrime provisions when used for the specified unlawful purposes.

Companies could face licence cancellation

The amendment would also strengthen provisions concerning offences committed by companies and other legal entities.

A new Section 29(3) proposes that if a company is convicted, a court may order the suspension, cancellation or prohibition of its registration, licence or activities.

The definition of “company” is also broadened to include not only companies registered under the Companies Act, 1994, but also commercial establishments, partnerships, associations, organizations, trusts, statutory bodies and other legal entities.

Not every case would go to a cyber tribunal

The proposed amendment would significantly change the trial structure.

Currently, offences under the Act are tried by cyber tribunals. Under the proposed Section 41, only specified serious offences would remain under cyber tribunals.

These include offences under Sections 17, 18, 23, 24, 25(3) and 26A, along with aiding those offences under Section 27.

Other offences would be tried by first-class magistrate courts. Where applicable under the Mobile Court Act, 2009, some offences could also be tried by mobile courts.

A new Section 41A provides separate appeal routes. Decisions of cyber tribunals involving the specified offences would be appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, while decisions of first-class magistrates would be appealable to the competent court under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Wider government power to block content

The most consequential changes appear in Section 8(2).

Under the existing law, law enforcement agencies can take action in specified circumstances involving digital or electronic information that threatens sovereignty, security, defence or public order, promotes religious or communal hatred or ethnic discrimination leading to violence, or directs disorder or criminal activity.

The proposed amendment would extend such powers to law enforcement agencies, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and other government-authorized agencies or forces.

The proposed grounds would explicitly include rumors and misinformation, threats to sovereignty, security, defence or public order, religious or communal hatred, ethnic violence, instructions for criminal or disorderly activities, defamatory information concerning a person or institution, and information insulting the state.

Authorities would be able to remove, block or transfer such information and request the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission to take necessary action.

This means the amendment is not merely creating new offences. It is also widening the institutional scope for online content control.

Is the transparency requirement being removed?

This is where an important discrepancy emerges between the discussion surrounding the amendment and the actual comparative draft.

The proposed Section 8(3) continues to state that when content is blocked, the government should arrange for information about the blocked content to be publicly disclosed in the interest of transparency.

The requirement appears in both the existing and proposed columns of the draft.

Therefore, based on the draft itself, there is no evidence that this transparency provision has been removed.

Three-day tribunal approval remains

A similar discrepancy appears regarding Section 8(4).

The existing provision requires tribunal approval within three days for removal, transfer or blocking under Section 8. If approval is not obtained or the tribunal refuses permission, the relevant information must be unblocked.

The proposed draft retains the three-day tribunal approval requirement.

At the same time, it adds a new remedy for aggrieved persons. A person affected by the action may apply to the relevant agency or court for unblocking. The agency or court may dispose of the application after giving the government or relevant party an opportunity to be heard.

The definition of an aggrieved person would also include the affected person’s legal representative, guardian, family member or another person with a legitimate interest.

Technology companies could face fixed deadlines

Another significant proposal appears in Section 49.

The government would be empowered to make rules governing procedures with technology companies, including setting necessary time limits for removing or blocking online content.

This could create a formal regulatory framework specifying how quickly a technology company would have to act after receiving a government request to remove or block content.

Cabinet committee reviews the amendment

A Cabinet committee was formed on 29 June to review the proposed amendments, headed by the minister responsible for Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technology.

The consultation process has involved officials and stakeholders including Minister Faqir Mahbub Anam, Salahuddin Ahmed, Md. Asaduzzaman, Andalib Rahman, Shama Obaid. and ICTD secretary Md. Mamunur Rashid Bhuiyan.

Concerns have been raised over ensuring that expanded powers to control online content do not become a mechanism for restricting freedom of expression or the media.

The final wording of the law will therefore be critical—particularly regarding the limits on blocking powers, transparency requirements, judicial oversight and remedies for affected persons.

The bigger picture

The proposed amendment points to three clear shifts.

First, the law would add or expand offences involving rumors, misinformation, defamation and bullying.

Second, several existing penalties would become substantially tougher, including penalties involving women and children.

Third, the government would gain a broader institutional framework for removing and blocking online content, while technology companies could eventually face legally defined deadlines for complying with such orders.

But the comparative draft also exposes an important distinction between what has been publicly discussed and what is actually written in the proposed text.

For now, the draft shows that both the three-day tribunal approval requirement and the public transparency provision for blocked content remain in place. The final legislation will determine whether those safeguards survive the amendment process.

//DBTech/ IH /SMR/MIST//