Bangladesh: HC pushes Death Penalty for online Blasphemy

Sanjoy Kumar Barua

In a trailblazing decision that could reshape the legal landscape of Bangladesh, the High Court has called for sweeping reforms to the Cyber Security Act, proposing that those found guilty of making offensive remarks against the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) face the death penalty or life imprisonment.

In a striking move, the court has also recommended that such offenses be made non-bailable, signaling a dramatic shift toward tougher accountability in the digital age.

This bold recommendation comes at a time when religious harmony in Bangladesh is increasingly under scrutiny.

The existing law currently carries a relatively light penalty—a maximum of two years’ imprisonment or a Tk 5 lakh fine—leaving room for offenders to escape with minimal consequences.

But in a move that has sent shockwaves across the country, the High Court’s latest suggestion aims to send a clear message that inflammatory remarks targeting sacred figures will not be tolerated.

The verdict, issued by the bench of Justice MR Hassan and Justice Fahmida Quader, calls for urgent action from Parliament to introduce stricter punishments for those engaging in “unnecessary, unconscionable, obstinate, and provocative” speech directed at religious figures, especially Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The court emphasized that Bangladesh, a nation proud of its religious diversity, must protect the sanctity of all faiths and preserve the peaceful coexistence of its people.

The judges recommended the introduction of life sentences or the death penalty for such offenses, as well as making them non-bailable, ensuring swift justice.

This groundbreaking ruling has made it clear that the current leniency of the law is insufficient to curb offenses that could stir social unrest or lead to communal violence.

The High Court’s powerful stance stems from the case of Md Selim Khan, a resident of Kushtia’s Bheramara Upazila, accused of making offensive comments about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on Facebook.

Khan’s remarks, posted in November 2023, were alleged to have been deliberately inflammatory, aimed at insulting Islamic beliefs and inciting unrest in the community.

The complaint was filed by Hanif Shah, a local resident, who claimed that the remarks were intended to provoke discord.

The case quickly gained national attention, and in March 2024, the High Court ruled on Khan’s bail petition, granting him temporary release with the stringent condition of depositing Tk 25 lakh as a guarantee.

The court also instructed the investigating officer to submit a supplementary charge sheet.

This decision brought the issue of online hate speech to the forefront of public debate in Bangladesh.

While the court’s verdict has been lauded by religious groups and many lawmakers as a necessary step to protect religious figures, it has also ignited a fierce debate about the limits of free speech.

Legal experts and civil rights advocates have raised concerns that such stringent measures could dangerously infringe on the right to free expression.

“The need to protect religious figures is undeniable,” says a lawer from supreme court seeking anonymity.

“However, we must ensure that the law does not cross the line into censorship or the stifling of legitimate discourse. There must be a careful balance between upholding religious dignity and respecting individual freedoms.”

The tension between religious protection and freedom of speech is particularly pressing in the age of social media, where offensive content can spread rapidly and reach a global audience within moments.

Legal analysts are divided over whether the proposed reforms would be effective in addressing the root causes of online hate speech without disproportionately curbing freedom of expression.

The court’s verdict is a clear message that Bangladesh’s legal system must evolve to address the complex challenges posed by digital platforms.

In its ruling, the High Court emphasized the need for stronger legal deterrents against inflammatory speech, recognizing that unchecked offenses against religious figures can lead to widespread fear, social division, and even violence.

By recommending non-bailable offenses, the court aims to ensure that justice is served swiftly and decisively.

“To discourage acts that may provoke violence or disrupt social harmony, the punishment for such offenses must be severe,” the bench declared.

“Offenders must be held accountable, and justice must be expedited.”

As Bangladesh grapples with these bold recommendations, the nation stands at a crossroads.

If Parliament adopts these changes, it will mark a profound shift in the country’s approach to free speech, religious protection, and online conduct.

But the implications of these changes will extend beyond the legal realm, affecting social, political, and cultural dynamics in the years to come.

While the court’s recommendation reflects a commitment to maintaining peace and protecting religious sensitivities, it also highlights the challenges of navigating the digital age.

Can Bangladesh successfully balance the need for robust protections against religious insults with the fundamental rights of free speech?

The answer to this question will shape the future of the country’s legal framework and the ongoing battle between digital freedoms and societal stability.

Bangladesh is at the forefront of an evolving global conversation on how nations should regulate online speech, safeguard their religious communities, and preserve the delicate balance between individual rights and social cohesion.