Decrypting the Digital Security Act of 2018 and Disclosing Its Unconstitutionality

Digital Bangladesh! The infamous phrase that is acquainted with all is enjoyed by most and suffered by many in Bangladesh. The ambitious proclama-tion of Digital Bangladesh aspired to rejuvenate Shonar Bangla (Golden Bengal) by establishing ease of accessibility to information together with feasible connectivity. Inarguably, feasible connectivity enhances communication which stipulates expanding freedom of speech. Unfortunately, that is where the Digital Bangladesh agenda folds, impeding and intoxicating the democratic/fundamental right of freedom of speech. The above denotes that polemic legislations such as the ICT Act and the DSA enacted to address cybercrimes have generally inflicted more harm than good. The trend of this study shows that the safety of cyberspace is the ex-situ concern, and cyber defamation and sedition en-cumbering free speech is the primary in-situ. Deservingly, the latter statute was branded draconian by multiple human rights entities. Whereby legally, the vires of the law are objectively justified by the constitutional inclusion of reasonable restrictions and the widely used maxim ut res magis valet quam pereat. Hence, are the restrictions reasonable? This empirical qualitative study answering that embarks on exploring the Digital Security Act; its vires; frequently used provisions; identify the inflicted and the inflictors; its adjectives; and procedures by expanding and expounding the language of the Act under the shade of primary and secondary data excavated from stare-decisis and existing scholarly research; relevant reports from various Ministries, governmental and non-governmental organizations; news. This study shows that the legislation frustrates the freedom of speech, especially that of media personnel. The statute has just begun to germinate, and its uncompromising characteristic is already on full display. Therefore, this study attempts reality check the enactment.


Introduction
December 12 marks the one and half decadal anniversary of the declaration of Digital Bangladesh, which was the nucleus of the political manifesto of the present government since its ascension to authority (Siddique & Akter, 2016). The agenda was the seamless befitting piece of the puzzle of politics under the existing circumstances back then as the developed parts of the world galloped towards cyberspace for information, commerce, and socialisation. Bangladesh, attempting to be at par with the rest of the world, embraced the phenomenon of "Digital Bangladesh." The proclamation was undoubtedly ambitious as it aspired to reincarnate Shonar Bangla (Golden Bengal). The itinerary of the concept was to obtain economic, social, and cultural sovereignty by allowing ICT or information communication technology to abridge related struggles. Such abridgement was estimated to be obtained by digitalizing the government, allowing the citizens easy access to information, and introducing ICT in business, and developing human resources to knot the ends of the string (Government of Bangladesh, 2009).
Indeed, the proclamation has transcended into reality; surveys estimating the internet subscribed populous of the country have denominated that 91 million Bangladeshis are active internet users (Bahalul Haque, 2019). Having established that and the context above superimposed to the truth of the scenario, it is conclusive that new beginnings welcome new aspirations and new troubles. Speaking of new troubles, Bangladesh holds the global runners-up position for being vulnerable to cyber threats and has also been the victim of leakage of profoundly confidential information (Bahalul Haque, 2019). The Central Bank of Bangladesh suffering at the hands of hackers exemplifies and justifies the preceding statement. Furthermore, unsolicited email or spam is the primary inflictor of national cyber threats. Astonishingly, Bangladesh secured the 18th position accounting for 7.2% of global spam volume in 2021, contributing approximately 15.5 billion spam (Paul, 2022). The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, acknowledging such cyber-attacks, crafted the Digital Security Act out of Section 57 of the ICT Act of 2006 and implemented the statute to address and contain cybercrimes (Freemuse, Dirk and PEN International, 2020). Hasan Mahmud, the information minister of Bangladesh, walked the same tracks and invoked the online protection clause vindicating the necessity of the statute (Hussain, 2021). However, the enactment raised concerns and has been repudiated and remonstrated as early as the seedling stage of the draft bill in 2017 relating to the fact that the statute infiltrates one of the basic principles of democracy, impeding and intoxicating the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression (Riaz, 2021). The journalist community alleged that statutes like the Digital Security Act and the Official Secrets Act are tools for suppressing inves-  (Hussain, 2021). The arrest and detention of investigative journalist Rozina Islam for photographing official government documents revealing the mismanagement and corruption within the health sector during the recent pandemic demonstrate the accusations and apprehension of the journalist community (Article 19, 2022). To complement the justification laid out by the journalist community, the Centre for Governance Studies (2021) reports that two distinct sections of the Digital Security Act, i.e., Section 25 and Section 29 dealing with sedition and defamation, respectively, have been prominently executed. The only differences between the traditional and the online approach of the offences are the method of publication and its potential outreach, i.e., in the online approach, the publication of seditious or defamatory statements exists in cyberspace, hence its reach is greater, whereas publication in the traditional form has limited reach and is transmitted offline.
Hence, the reach of the information is more extensive. Irrefutably, sedition and defamation fall within the ambit of "reasonable restrictions" imposable on the freedom of speech. However, the selective application of the provisions (FIDH, 2021) and overinterpretation of the restrictions excessively curbing the freedom of speech raises concern. The murderous approach of the statute has been surviving the ultra-vires dangling on the threads of objective justification of the constitutional inclusion of the phrase "subject to reasonable restrictions" and the widely used maxim of statutory interpretation ut res magis valet quam pereat, i.e., allowing legislation to be operative rather than rendering it null. This study attempts reality-check the statute attempting to identify its hoo-ha, its controversial execution, and the reasons behind its renunciation by society at large.

Aims & Scope
"This Act has not been enacted to curb the freedom of speech and press" a rather conflictive statement enunciated by Anisul Huq, the Minister of Law, while conceding that the statute has been misapplied and exploited (Daily Star, 2021b) to favour the adverse. Moreover, the Digital Security Act of 2018 has been condemned by as many as 45 international human rights entities calling for its withdrawal over concerns of invasion of online freedom of speech, peril of online privacy, compromised data encryption, etcetera (Prothom Alo, 2022a), which resulted in its dismissal by such entities, correspondingly branding it draconian.
The misuse of the Act to the current critical degree caused the Law Minister to advise the Home Minister to cease abusing the statutory provisions (Daily Star, 2021b). In those regards, this empirical qualitative study embarked on exploring the Digital Security Act to: 1) Expand and expound the Act by explaining its general overview, the controversial investigation procedures, and identify the most frequently executed provisions.
2) Reality-check the statute by tasking the vires of the statute against the Constitution.
3) Identify the genuinely inflicted and the corresponding inflictors of the provisions of the statute.

Research Limitations
The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh has always been efficient with manipulating and burying information, notwithstanding the party in power. The above appears to be a bold accusation; however, the case of Mainul Hosein vs. Anwar Hossain (2004) is evidence of the manipulative aspect. Daily Ittefaq, a prominent news company, suffered rigorously during the ministerial reign of the respondent as the respondent influenced/manipulated news reports to befit personal and party interests. According to the United States Department of State (2021), there has been a decline in the rule of law in the country; the media industry walked in the footstep of government censorship which translates to the government's distrust of society. Additionally, numerous journalists have resorted to precautionary self-censorship given the ongoing circumstance (FIDH, 2021). On the other hand, law enforcement agencies are primarily oblique and disinclined to provide data. The application of Saad Hammadi, a human rights defender enquiring about the number of cases filed, the identity of the accused, and the number of arrests inflicted under the Digital Security Act since its promulgation, was expelled by the Bangladesh Police on the grounds of non-obligation. Such dismissal is a distinct indication of the deliberate efforts to bury the information (Riaz, 2021). Financial information of the government and private companies has been withheld from being advertised by the intelligence services (United States Department of State, 2021). Furthermore, the selective application of the Digital Security Act is evident from the data of the charges entertained under the Act (FIDH, 2021). Allegations are made and dropped at will (BSS, 2021), and cases are dismissed for suiting selective needs even when an offence is apparent under the provision of the statute (Bangla Insider, 2021).

Methodology
The course of this study is empirical, whereby the qualitative data analysis approach was adopted to extract its results. Qualitative study deploys in-depth scrutiny en route revealing the relevant interconnection and interdependency between concepts (Bari, 2022 reports of local governmental and non-governmental organizations and international entities were extensively studied and analysed. It is well-settled that Bangladesh regulates within the legal system of the common-law (Bari, 2022

Results & Discussions
This empirical qualitative study is designed to expand and expound the Digital Security Act by explaining its general overview, the incorporated offences, and procedures. Identify the most frequently executed provisions; reality-check the statute by tasking the vires of the statute against the Constitution and ascertain the relation of the Act to the recent Amendment of the Evidence Act and identify the genuinely inflicted and the corresponding inflictors of the provisions of the statute. All the predetermined objectives are addressed elaborately hereinafter.

General Overview of the Enactment
The Preamble of any Statute is the general indication of the intent of the Legislature. In that context, the Digital Security Act of 2018 ensures digital security by classifying, inhibiting, and suppressing offences committed through digital devices (Digital Security Act, 2018). The Act was not enacted to silence the voices of the citizens and the mass media (Runa, 2019). This is debatable; however, Runa (2019) failed to realize that the statute was engraved out of the controversial Section 57 of the ICT Act (Freemuse, Dirk and PEN International, 2020) amid demands for its amendment. By virtue, modern civilisation embraces broader definitions of media, journalists, and the concept of citizen journalism, given that media has expanded and reached the palms of almost anyone equipped with a smartphone (Ataulla & Yildirim, 2021). Lacy and Mookherjee (2020) remarked that the Digital Security Act was enacted to amplify the severity of procedures, i.e., designate all broad charges of the remonstrated Section 57 of the ICT Act as cognizable or arrestable demonstrated in Figure 1, curtail its bail-ability, and enhance the penalties. Prior to promulgation, the statute was brutally scrutinized,  In recent years, Bangladesh experienced two pandemics and one war: the COVID-19 and the rape pandemic (Bari, 2022) and the war on freedom of speech.
The government was heavily critiqued in cyberspace for its incompetent/futile response to the pandemic, corruption, discriminatory application of lockdown rules, and misappropriation of relief packages during the lockdowns. A few accusations of corruption were attended; however, all the critics of the questionable pandemic response, such as academics, doctors, government officials, journalists, and ordinary citizens, were prosecuted (Siddiki, 2022) illustrated in Figure 2.
Health officials were deliberately prohibited from addressing the media (United States Department of State, 2021). It has also been reported that a monthly average of 67 arrests are made (Daily Star, 2022). The Centre for Governance Studies trailed 668 cases under the Digital Security Act; astonishingly, only two tracked cases have been disposed. The first case is one relating to extortion of money by police officers, and the second relating to defamation. Furthermore, the organization also reported that the alleged victims did not file 88% of those tracked cases (Riaz, 2021). Amnesty International (2021) has branded the law as draconian, vague, overly broad and recognized it as a tool for repression as it violates the international standard of free speech and expression. Provisions such as sections 25, 28, 29, etcetera vigorously threaten freedom of speech (Farok, 2019).
The international standard of free speech also designates that criticism of authority can never be justifiably punished (Amnesty International, 2021 (Riaz, 2021).
resources, it is only the freedom of speech, expression, and press being victimized (The Financial Express, 2021).

Offences: Its Constituents, Penalties and Characteristics
From the trend of the offences provided by the Digital Security Act of 2018, it is apparent that the special statute is inclined to punish the cyber variant of traditional offences. Exempli gratia, propaganda against friendly sovereign entities (Section 21), forgery (Section 22), fraud (Section 23); identity fraud (Section 24); sedition (Section 25); offending religious sentiments (Section 28); defamation (Section 29); deteriorating law and order (Section 31) and disclosing confidential government information (Section 32). The cyber form of traditional offences constitutes roughly 53% (fifty-three percent), i.e., the majority average of the offences provided therein. Furthermore, the penalization is categorized into first offence and successive offence. The first offence incurs imprisonment ranging from 6 months to imprisonment for life, and the fine imposable ranges from Tk. 2 lac to Tk. 1 crore. A few of the offences committed first instance are non-arrestable, and only the offence of making or abetting illegal access to a computer provided under Section 18 (1) (a) is compoundable. All successive offences are arrestable and non-compoundable. Wherein imprisonment ranges from 2 × 6 months, i.e., one year to life imprisonment, fines imposable like imprisonment extends from 2 × Tk. 2 lac, i.e., Tk 4 lac to Tk. 5 crores.

Investigation
Comprehend this, complaining that the additional taxes imposed on mobile call rates on Facebook was a hard bargain for a 14-year-old student. The minor was arrested and detained in juvenile prison over a post that was supposedly critical of the government and also supposedly defamed the Prime Minister (FIDH,  (Islam, 2021b). The takeaway that offends the legal mind is that the special legal framework for minors is consciously overlooked. On another note, is the cyberspace of Bangladesh intolerably thin-skinned? The answer probably is no. However, the correlation between the statutorily allowed authority and its divergence from reality infers the thin-skinned characteristic. The Digital Security Act facilitates unprecedented power for the government and its officials (FIDH, 2021). To simplify, investigation proceedings are initiated at the snap of a finger against anybody whose online activities are considered a threat. Individuals have been apprehended without a lawful warrant in a non-arrestable offence on mere suspicion, search, and seizure occur without the authority of a search warrant, and the most unfortunate of all, the event of case filing after arrest (Riaz, 2021). The answer can be debated but cannot be justified against the deducted reality. The digital cell of the police must refer to Section 53 of the act before manifesting arrest (Karim, 2022). Even the procedural law prescribes the issuance of warrant (The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898|99A. Power to Declare Certain Publications Forfeited and to Issue Search Warrants for the Same). However, the DSA is a special statute that supersedes the procedural law by virtue of the non-obstante clause (Mahboob vs. Bangladesh Election Commissioner, 1998), which is the primary reason for all the panic (Perera, 2020). Speaking of special statutes, the investigative procedure prescribes that the investigation must be completed within 60 days. Failure to comply allows the investigation period to be extended by 15 days by the controller. Thereafter, the jurisdiction shifts to the special tribunal, whereby the tribunal may allow an extension of 30 days. Furthermore, the investigating officer failing to complete the investigation within the prescribed period and the extensions allowed by the higher authorities may again seek an extension of a reasonable period from the tribunal. Conclusively, the statutorily prescribed period for completing an investigation is 75 days. However, the accused is held in custody even after the expiration of such period (Riaz, 2021). Consider the detention of Shahidul Alam for over 100 days as an example (Dr. Shahidul Alam vs. State, 2019), the custodial death and 10-month detention of Mushtaq Ahmed, the custodial torture and 10-month detention of Ahmed Kabir (Amnesty International, 2021), and many more undocumented. Under such circumstances, the course of the law dictates that procedural failures such as noncompletion of investigation entitle the accused to be released on bail de-jure (Begum Khaleda Zia vs. State, 2020). Moreover, the search and seizure policy is contradictory and allows broad discretion to the police. According to Section 42, the police may search with a warrant, and the very next section permits the police to execute search at discretion without a warrant (Digital Security Act, 2018

Frequently Executed Provisions
Referring to the general overview, the Digital Security Act was enacted primarily to provide security of the cyberspace interalia. The statute was, however, mostly executed to criminalize defamation, slander, libel, and criticisms of the govern-

Section 25
Democracy operates best in a society where free and frank discussions are accepted with enthusiasm and positivism (Sheikh Fazlul Haque vs. State, 1970).
Unarguably, Bangladesh is a democratic society. In Sheikh Mujibur Rahman vs. State (1969), it was held that the concept of democracy also permits oppositional activities, freedom of expression and thoughts within qualified limits, and the right to criticize (Mashiur Rahman vs. State, 1974). Such right to criticize must not be abused to jeopardise the safety of the government by provoking contempt, hate, disaffection, and disloyalty against the government (Sangbad vs. East Pakistan, 1958 (Juralacuity, 2021). Shackling freedom of speech is a political tradition in Bangladesh and has been commonly done by every political party in power (Hossain et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the severity of the Digital Security Act is so relentless that it has been frowned upon since its seedling stage. The mischiefs of Section 25 of DSA have been portrayed in Figure 3. Abdul Asad, the editor of Gazi and Daily Sangram was exposed to sedition over an article calling Quader Mollah a martyr (CPU Media Trust, 2020). Pritam of Rastro Songskar Andolon was arrested over a Facebook post (BDNews24, 2022).
According to Amnesty International (2021) (Garner & Black, 2009: p. 1479. Germany in the 1930s criminalized listening to enemy broadcasters and imprisoned any violators in concentration camps, the ethnic cleansing of Myanmar was a civil war, and Bangladesh is a step away from dismissing and altogether criminalizing freedom of speech and freedom of media (Lita, 2022).

Section 29
Commencing ahead, ACC vs. Mufti Shahidul Alam (2016)  is open to the judgement of the public, wherefrom a minster of the respective ministry is enquired in those regards, and the minister confirms such misappropriation along with the names of the individuals responsible, publication related to such matter of public concern does not qualify for defamation (Jawaharlal

Freedom of Speech, Expression & Its Restrictions
The schema of Digital Bangladesh was to walk side by side with modern civilisation, and one prime feature of modern civilisation is enhanced communication  Bangladesh being a 50-year young nation, has lots to discover, rediscover, research, reiterate and adapt and especially realize that democracy operates best in a society where free and frank discussions are accepted with enthusiasm and positivism (Sheikh Fazlul Haque vs. State, 1970); that freedom of speech is the pedestal of democracy (Haque, 2018); that freedom of speech consolidates and institutionalizes democracy (Ataulla & Yildirim, 2021) and that freedom of speech is indispensable for a functioning democracy (Islam, 2012: p. 329). Freedom House, an American non-profit human rights-defending organisation, surveyed Bangladesh and deemed it partially free. The result of the survey is tabulated in To specify, free speech can only be constricted to ensure state security, maintain cordial relations with foreign states, uphold public order, public morality and decency, discourage contempt of court, and contain incitement of an offence (Islam, 2012: p. 330). In short, statements proved to be in breach of law (Dicey, 1959: pp. 240-241), satisfying the presumption that exercising such right neither offends any law nor violates any right of any individual (Bangladesh National Curriculum and Text-Book Board (NCTB) vs. Bangladesh, 1996) or a class of citizens (Tayeeb vs. Bangladesh, 2015). State vs. Chief Editor, Manabjamin (2005) established that malicious, libellous, or untrue statements do not fall within the ambit of freedom of speech, and the protection provided therewith is suspended.
From hereinabove, reasonable restrictions are lawfully imposable on the freedom of speech; however, the reasonableness of such restriction must resonate with Article 19 of the ICCPR and must be provided by law pursuing a legitimate objective that is essential and proportionate (Liu, Posetti, & Shabbir, 2022).

Right to Privacy
"There is no spying in America. We don't have a domestic spying program" remarked then-President Barack Obama on the tonight show with Jay Leno (Obama, 2013). NSA employee and whistle-blower Edward Snowden proved the contrary of the statement revealing to the world how the joint venture between the NSA and the British (GCHQ) founded on the UKUSA agreement violated the right to privacy (Puntambekar, 2015). There is no spying in Bangladesh either; however, the investigative unit of Al Jazeera recently alleged that Bangladesh purchased surveillance equipment that is capable of monitoring hundreds of mobile phones simultaneously (Unit AJI, 2021 Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd. established that confidential information pertaining to personal agenda, affairs, and transaction fall within the ambit of privacy (Barnett, 2009: pp. 557-559). However, such privilege does not extend to matters relating to personal property and wealth (Tarique Rahman vs. ACB, 2000).  (Dr. Nurul Islam vs. Bangladesh, 1981). Unlike the factum of Sk. Fazlul Karim Selim vs. Bangladesh (1981), therein, based on the petitioner's political background, the authentication of a newspaper declaration was refused by the police. The state is constitutionally obliged to be fair and just, ensuring public good (Bangladesh Bank vs. East West Property, 2017). The statute, by virtue of its selective application or extraneous consideration, constitutes "malice in law" (Regional Manager vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, 1976). Furthermore, the statute also overlooks the principle of beneficial interpretation (AKM Nurul Alam vs.

Assessing the Vires of the Enactment
Bangladesh, 1994). The state may elect to restrict speech on reasonable grounds.
The Digital Security Act limits hate speech, but the term and its constituents remain undefined (British Home Office, 2021). The undefined prose displays intolerance of criticism, amounts to vagueness, and broadens discretion and interpretative aspect of it (Amnesty International, 2021). The Digital Security Act violates the constitutional and international standard of free speech (Siddique & Akter, 2016) as it restricts digital communications and digital contents (Siddik & Rahi, 2020). According to Blair (2020), the restriction on speech since the promulgation of the Digital Security Act exceeds every standard seen previously in Bangladesh. The trend of this study is evidence that the statute overtly exceeds the Constitution and invades the rights of citizens. Hence, the vires of the statute is highly questionable.

Identifying the Accused & the Accusers
To generalize, members of the intellectual society, such as academics, lawyers, authors, and especially media personnel, have been tormented the most at the hands of the Digital Security Act. Hence, disconcerting freedom of speech is permitted under the statute, which is deceptive and subtle. Observation of every unpleasant truth intellectually represented in cyberspace via words spoken or written, or by signs, or creative representations such as caricatures has always offended anyone and everyone. Disappointing enough, such has always been interpreted to be an offence under the statute. It may not be that surprising that the majority of the accusation has not been filed by the alleged victims but by anyone and everyone. Now, the question that ticks away is, who is actually offended by the alleged post? Also, how is the locus standi of these extra-curricular offendee(s) decided? Or rather, is the locus-standi valid? The answer is YES, as the prosecuting rights under the statute are exclusively reserved for the police (Digital Security Act, 2018).

The Accused & Abused Media
Stifling of the media has been in the history of Bangladesh since British colonization (Blair, 2020). The media has always been under inspection. Now with the concept of citizen journalism (Ataulla & Yildirim, 2021), statutes like the Official Secrets Act and the Digital Security Act empower the government excessively to restrict speech containing criticism under the camouflage of state security (Brennen, 2003). In Hamidul Huq Chowdhury vs. Bangladesh (1982), the Apex Court held that the foundation of a free government in a constitutional democratic society relies on the freedom of the press. Vigour and strength of civil and political institutions of a democratic society are derived from free discussions based on the reasoning that information enriches the decision-making process achievable by freedom of the press. Free press is "the lifeblood of democracy" and is inherently responsible for raising intellectual war against any social ill or wrong and accurately informing the citizens of such ill or wrong (State vs. Mizanur Rahman Khan, 2018). Interference with the freedom of the press must be reasonably justified (Barnett, 2009: pp. 557-559). Curtailing Press freedom can be compared to trying to fit the denizens of modern civilisation into cave dwelling. IT DOES NOT WORK. The High Court Division realized the hypocritic discrepancy of the allegations against renowned photographer and social worker Dr. Shahidul Alam. The Court enlarged the accused on bail after 100 days of unlawful detention. The inconsistency of the accusation and the subject matter of the interview that birthed such allegations was visible in plain sight. The allegation made therein the Ejahar was that the motive of the accused was to incite and provoke the "Safe Road" protests to overthrow the current government (Dr. Shahidul Alam vs. State, 2019). Shahidul Alam was asked whether the protests were only related to road safety or was it something much larger. Alam, in his reply, mentioned that the government was unelected and forcefully remained in power. He also made mentions of the lawlessness, corruption, forced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, the lack of democracy, and that the government was handling the protests of unarmed students with brute force (Al Jazeera English, 2018). Nowhere in that transcript is a statement that tends to incite hatred or disaffection to overthrow the government. Immediate arrest of journalists under the DSA has been discouraged by law minister Anisul Huq (The Independent, 2021). Investigative journalist Rozina Islam was charged for photographing government papers, and ten editors of various newspapers have been charged under the DSA (Hussain, 2021). The disappearance followed by the arbitrary detention of journalist Shafiqul Islam Kajol over sharing the media reports of the "entertainment scandal" of the ruling party politicians on Facebook (Asian Human Rights Watch, 2020). The unresolved murder of investigative journalists Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi, regarding which it has been remarked that the current reality of Bangladesh allows journalists to work in an unsafe environment that carries the inherent risk of attack, intimidation, and being killed (UNHR, 2022). The arrest of Fazle Elahi is regarding a report alleging the irregularities of a rental property owned by the daughter of a former MP (Barkley, 2022). Figure 5 depicts the press freedom index of Bangladesh reported by RSF in the past 12 years. Bangladesh has always been in the bottom tier of the media freedom index. RSF designated Bangladesh 162 in the 2022 (RSF, 2022) freedom index among the 180 tracked countries of the world. The trend of the graph shows that press freedom in Bangladesh has been on a constant decline. Bangladesh has jumped 50 places in the bottom tier in the past decade (United News, 2022a). Polemic legislations like the Information Communication Technology Act, the Digital Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, etc., effortlessly contribute towards the depreciating media freedom index in Bangladesh, silencing anyone considered a Unreasonable restrictions have been imposed on independent media, and journalists have been prosecuted in the process shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, indicating national and local journalists, respectively. A study conducted by the Centre for Governance Studies reveals that the media ownership pattern in Bangladesh finds its roots in political affiliations, donors, family ties, business associates of the ruling party, and licensing has been selectively approved or renewed (United States Department of State, 2021). The Watergate Scandal comes to mind as attempts were made to purchase the newspaper by Ehrlichman and Nixon, and the existing owners faced incredible difficulties with paperwork related to the renewal of the broadcast licence (Brennen, 2003). The journalist community has also alleged that alongside the DSA, the National Broadcast Policy of 2014 has also contributed to the mischief of curtailing the freedom of the press (British Home Office, 2021). Let alone an intellectual right like the freedom of speech and press, the journalist community has been constantly subjugated to intimidation, harassment, physical attacks, and in worst-case scenarios,

Rank & Score
Year Global Rank Freedom Score Figure 6. National journalist accusee/detenu (Riaz, 2021). Figure 7. Local journalist accusee/detenu (Riaz, 2021). ensure such safety and prosecute all violations (Liu, Posetti, & Shabbir, 2022). Investigative journalism has always been outlashed in the country (Rahman & Rashid, 2020). Investigative journalist like Rozina Islam has given us the truth of corruption related to the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Hussain, 2021), the alleged corruption related to the Bangladesh energy sector that supposedly caused the murder of investigative journalists Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi (UNHR, 2022), the infamous Watergate scandal exposed by journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. (Bernstein & Woodward, 2014), the alleged nuclear test in North Korea, authored by investigative journalist James Rosen (Gallagher, 2013). The press, like the judiciary, is responsible for checking and controlling the abuse of power, the press exposes the deception, and the courts enforce accountability (State vs. Swadesh Roy Daily Janakantha, 2016). In those regards, a controlled media fails to fulfill its obligation of informing the public of the truth (State vs. Mizanur Rahman Khan, 2018). The press, however, must remember to avoid commenting on any matter which is sub-judice as it tends to interfere with the decision-making of the court of justice (Keya Cosmetics Ltd vs. Dewan Hanif Mahmud, 2015). As recent as 13th January 2023, the journalists in Rangpur took the streets and formed a human chain   Figure 9. Astonishingly, 85%

Other Professionals
(eighty-five percent) of cases under the Digital Security Act for defaming political personalities have been filed by the ruling party and its affiliates (Islam, 2021a).

The Accusers
Social media proliferation has hosted and witnessed many social movements, society where the poor can rarely bring a shalish (Lacy & Mookherjee, 2020).
The trend of Figure 10 shows that individuals forwarded as many as 170 complaints under the Digital Security Act. Who were these individuals? The safest assumption is that the majority of the complainants are associates or affiliates of the ruling party (Islam, 2021a;Daily Star, 2021b). The runners-up of the majority accusations are political, which is discussed hereafter in the succeeding section.

Political Accusations
Politics begets both content and conflict (Al-Zaman, 2020). The Digital Security Act played its role perfectly and has gotten the much-deserved exposure over its controversial provisions prosecuting many undeserving innocent individuals. To a large extent, Bangladeshi politics has been modulated by political participation in cyberspace (Islam, 2021a Figure 10. Identification of the complainants (Riaz, 2021). Bangladesh (Kenski & Jamieson, 2014). Astonishingly, 85% (eighty-five percent) of cases under the Digital Security Act have been filed by the ruling party and its affiliates. As many as 71 cases have been filed for defaming the Prime Minster and 41 for defaming other ministers (Islam, 2021a). The upsurge of modernisation allowed every citizen to perform journalistic roles. The majority of the cases associated with politics end with detention and custodial torture without a trial (Riaz, 2021). Figure 11 & Figure 12 highlights accusations under the statute by various active political entities; 82% (eighty-two percent) of such accusations belong to the various organizations of the ruling party. The existing situation of the country after the enactment of the DSA has been described as "nightmare reality" by the Editor's Council (Islam, 2021b). They say the functioning of democracy

Conclusion
Irrefutably, Digital Bangladesh has been transcending into reality. A reality where information has become accessible, and communication has enhanced at the cost of freedom of speech and the right to criticism. This study is evidence that the safety of cyberspace in Bangladesh is ensured by prosecuting defamation and sedition. Unsurprisingly, corruption is upper echelon while the freedom score of the State is bottom tier, and the rule of law is in jeopardy. Additionally, the cyber statutes colossally fail the equality clause, fail the test of reasonableness of a statute, and invade privacy which in turn makes the vires of the statute questionable. Shonar Bangla (Golden Bengal) cannot be obtained through intolerance to criticism and lawlessness but rather the inverse. The argument behind such is that Bangladesh is a democratic state that permits oppositional activities, freedom of speech and optimistically embraces the right to criticism. Undoubtedly, all the above is ascertained in black and white.
Nevertheless, it is utmost misfortunate that reality strongly disagrees understood from the trend of this study. Independent journalism is frowned upon, and robust criticism is nipped. In most cases, alleged perpetrators are arrested before the offence is confirmed through investigation. Now, with the recent amendment of the Evidence Act in August 2022, allowing admissibility of digital records and recognizing it as the traditional equivalent of a document while attaching discretionary presumption to digital communication intensifies the menaces, as discretion can inflict justice and injustice. Referring to the fact that freedom of speech since the promulgation of the Digital Security Act has been at its lowest since the independence of Bangladesh, it is only deserving that freedom of speech is celebrated. Hence: Freedom of Speech, My Beloved Friend. Apologies that you have been the Victim of the Technological Trend, and the Political Advancement.
The Trend that Pledged your Safety and Outreach. Apologies again that your Trust was Breached. The Trend that Tormented and Strangled you to Death. Apologies with Hopes of you Rejuvenating under our breath.
The sestet above alludes to the fond memories of freedom of speech. Additionally, the overall status of freedom of speech by best depicted by the following scenario: here lies the body of Freedom of Speech, finely fitted in dissent, wrapped in public opinion, and fragranced in political discussions. Freedom of speech fought the war of cyberspace against the Digital Security Act through many grave wounds and was captured and brutally tormented before being strangled to death.
Hence, to commemorate the bravery and immortalize the sacrifices of Freedom of Speech, lets us observe silence, an eternal silence.

Recommendations
This section has been divided into two broad categories; the first element identifies the relevant setbacks of the legislation, while the second contains recommendations for the stakeholders, especially for the legislative and the executive branches of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

Identifying the Drawbacks
The major setbacks of the Digital Security Act of 2018 are viz.
1) The statute is excessively broad, allowing it to be misinterpreted.
2) The statute has been misused, abused, and misapplied.
3) The statute undermines the nation's commitment to international instruments.
4) The statute is filled with undefined vague provisions to consider an example usage of the term "offensive," "knows to be," in Section 25. The statute has equated public opinions and political discussions with sedition and almost stripped media freedom.

Commendations for Improvements
The backlash faced by the Digital Security Act can be resolved by: 1) Limiting discretion: Permitting excessive discretion enables the possibility of excessive abuse. The vague sections of the statute that allows excessive discretion should be specified; undefined provisions should be allocated definite meaning. 3) Adhere to Stare-Decisis: For every detention that exceeds the 24-hour limitation, and the accused is lawfully remanded, the detaining authority must adhere to the directives laid down by the Apex Court in Bangladesh vs. BLAST 7) Amend defamation to be a tortious civil liability.
8) Ensure that the statute adheres to the constitutional standard and the international standard of free speech.