Methodology

To gather data for this project, researchers utilized a live case tracker⁶⁰ to identify 451 instances where the DSA was used against journalists in Bangladesh since the law’s enactment in 2018. The dataset comprised 222 cases against 396 journalists: leading to 451 incidents of criminalization (referred to as the “dataset/primary dataset”). These different numbers are due to the following factors: (1) in over 100 cases, two or more journalists were implicated in the same case, and (2) an individual journalist sometimes faced multiple charges in different cases. Therefore, each time a journalist faced a criminal case was recorded as a separate incident—leading to a total of 451 incidents of criminalization (referred to as “incidents/instances”).

The dataset comprised details regarding: the journalist/accused person (age and gender), the complainant (gender, profession and political affiliation, if any), the criminal complaint (date filed, police station, and district), status of the case, and pre-trial detention (where available and if any). Efforts were made to include cases from all 8 divisions in Bangladesh and outside the largest cities.

This data was last updated in June-July 2024. The data was gathered using public sources, and consequently the date of the last available news report/public information for cases varies (i.e., for some cases the most recent information is from 2019). Further, because of the use of public sources, it is likely the data underrepresents cases against journalists in smaller towns or those that received lesser public attention.

Out of 222 cases, 30 were selected for deep-dive study (referred to as “case studies”). These case studies reflected a cross-section of journalists: 10 journalists hailed from major cities (such as Dhaka, Rangpur, Khulna); nine from smaller cities (such as Thakurgaon, Kishoreganj); 10 from towns (such as Chatmohar, Gaibandha, Trishal) and one from a village. For each of the case studies, the journalist(s) were interviewed and comprehensive documentation of their case was obtained, including complaints, First Information Reports (FIR), chargesheets, detention orders, bail orders, stay orders and court judgments, where available. These cases were analysed across many factors, including the work-profile of the journalist, substance of the allegations, the circumstances of arrest, the course the case took and its impact on the journalists. However, certain information—for example whether a warrant was presented during an arrest, whether family members were informed of an arrest, and the nature of legal representation obtained—was difficult to analyse as this information was not clearly stated in the records. For each case study, the documents available differed, and publicly available sources were used to supplement information about the case, where available and reliable.

For the 30 case studies, we identified and categorized the substance of the allegations. The cases where the allegations in the complaint/FIR concerned the journalist’s professional work—reporting on public interest issues or sharing news about such issues—were categorized as “core journalistic work.” Among these cases, those involving commentary on/criticism of the government or government functionaries were also identified as a sub-category.

The cases where the allegation in the complaint was not directly tied to journalistic work were categorized as “other activity”—this included allegations that the journalist defrauded the complainant or took photos without consent or made social media posts in their personal capacity.⁶¹ In several interviews, journalists who faced such cases stated that the complaints were, in fact, filed in retaliation for their reporting—those were identified as such. Finally, the cases where the allegations in the complaint/FIR concerned a post/article on social media were categorized as “social media”—these cases cut across both the aforementioned categories. A detailed analysis of these categories is included in “Basis for Charges” section of the report.

It should be noted that the data in this report is by no means an exhaustive list of cases filed against journalists under the DSA; rather, this is meant to provide a sense of the ways the law was abused, and draw lessons for the future.