Police powers clash with constitution

Online betting and gambling activities will now face some of the strictest penalties under Bangladesh’s new legal regime after Parliament unanimously passed the Gambling Prevention Bill 2026, replacing the century-old Public Gambling Act, 1867.

The new law introduces a comprehensive framework to address both traditional and digital gambling, targeting online betting platforms, financial networks, promoters and individuals involved in facilitating gambling activities.

Under the penal provisions of the draft law, online betting has been placed in the highest punishment category, carrying up to seven years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 5 crore, or both.

Operating as a bookmaker will also be punishable with up to seven years in jail or a fine of up to Tk 5 crore, reflecting the government’s focus on dismantling organised gambling networks.

For conventional gambling, the law prescribes a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 2 lakh, or both.

Those involved in online or remote gambling-short of operating as bookmakers-will face up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 1 crore, or both.

The legislation also criminalises the operation, management, control, renting, or use of premises for gambling activities. Such offences will be punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 4 lakh, or both.

Home minister said the law is designed to modernise Bangladesh’s gambling control system by covering emerging digital platforms and cyber-enabled betting structures that were not addressed in the colonial-era legislation.

However, the expanded enforcement framework has triggered debate over civil liberties, particularly regarding search and seizure powers granted to law enforcement agencies.

Clause 36 of the law empowers police to search individuals, inspect digital devices, and seize property suspected to be linked to gambling offences. Critics argue that the provision may enable broad discretionary powers without sufficient judicial oversight.

However, legal expert said such provisions violate constitutional provision.
Human rights expert and Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Farhan Md Araf told The New Nation that such authority must be balanced with constitutional protections, particularly the right to privacy under Article 43 of the Constitution, which safeguards the privacy.

“International human rights instruments, including Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), also prohibit arbitrary interference in private life and communication.”

Araf said that while public safety is important, investigative powers should not exceed constitutional boundaries, and any violation of fundamental rights could be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Opposition MP Nazibur Rahman also criticised Clause 36, arguing that it could conflict with procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which requires post-seizure reporting to a magistrate under Section 523.

He welcomed the intent of the law but cautioned that excessive police discretion may create inconsistencies with existing legal frameworks.

The government, however, defended the legislation, saying it is essential to combat rising online gambling, protect young people, and curb cyber-financial crimes in an increasingly digital economy.