• Tuesday, Feb 19, 2019
  • Last Update : 01:29 pm

DU teacher sues colleague under Section 57 of ICT Act

  • Published at 11:19 am July 14th, 2017
  • Last updated at 11:36 am July 14th, 2017
DU teacher sues colleague under Section 57 of ICT Act
A teacher of Dhaka University has filed a case against one of his colleagues under Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act. Professor Dr Abul Mansur Ahmed of mass communication and journalism department filed the case against Associate Prof Dr Fahmidul Haq of the same department with Shahbagh police station on Thursday. In the case statement, Prof Mansur alleged that Fahmidul posted on a Facebook group bringing false allegation against him. “He [Fahmidul] held me responsible for the delay in publishing the result of Master’s course and alleged that I have influenced media for making report against another professor,” Prof Mansur stated. Prof Fahmidul said: “I did not write anything out of my concern. Someone might have been offended because of my writing on Facebook. I do not want to say anything more about this.
Also Read- What will happen to the Section 57 cases?
“Since it is a legal process, I will deal with it legally.” Shahbag police station Officer-in-Charge Abul Hossain said they would take further steps as per the law. On July 2, Daily Samakal published a report alleging that the result publication of Master’s course of journalism department has been delayed as one of the tabulators, Prof Gitiara Nasreen, had rewritten marks in the transcript. Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act stipulates that any post, image, or video on an electronic format that “causes to deteriorate law and order, prejudice the image of the state or person or hurt religious beliefs” are non-bailable offences.
Also Read- My life with Section 57
The punishment is a minimum seven years in prison and up to a maximum of 14 years. The fines can go up to Tk1 crore. Numerous journalists, students and teachers have been imprisoned under Section 57. The act has been called draconian in its implementation and criticised for how it can be interpreted by law enforcement agencies.