BD's Govt-Run Fact-Checkers: A Threat to Press Freedom and Constitution

Launched on October 24, 2024, by the interim government’s Chief Adviser’s Press Wing, CA Press Wing Facts began as a Facebook page aimed at countering alleged “misinformation” surrounding government actions. In early 2025, the Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB) introduced BanglaFact, claiming to improve media research and verify politically sensitive information.

While this may sound reasonable, it raises critical constitutional concerns.

Article 39 of Bangladesh's Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press, with only limited, lawful restrictions for national security or public order. But when the government itself takes on the authority to define what is “true” or “false,” without independent checks, it risks undermining these freedoms and enabling authoritarian control.

Bangladesh has experienced similar issues in the past. The Digital Security Act has been used to harass and arrest journalists, students, and citizens for their online posts, turning into a tool for stifling dissent. Now, the government-led fact-checking platforms—disguised as digital solutions—mirror this same danger.

CA Press Wing Facts has labeled articles from reputable outlets like The Daily Star, The Indian Express, and The New York Times as “misleading”—yet they offer no transparency, sourcing, or accountability that independent fact-checkers provide. These platforms mimic fact-checking practices but are solely accountable to the state.

This approach fails to meet international standards, such as those set by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), which emphasizes independent operation, clear methodologies, source citations, and corrections. In contrast, CA Press Wing Facts and BanglaFact selectively promote data that supports the government while discrediting opposing views. These are not objective fact-checkers—they are state-controlled narrative managers.

The government may argue that these platforms are simply presenting their “side of the story,” but why adopt fact-checking language and techniques if they are not doing so? Labeling independent reporting as “false” contradicts any claim of neutrality. You cannot claim to be impartial while also determining the truth.

This goes beyond undermining trust—it may be unconstitutional. Article 7 of the Constitution affirms that all power belongs to the people, and any government action must align with constitutional principles. The state policing the truth, without oversight, violates this principle, concentrating unchecked power in the executive branch.

Moreover, labeling media content as false or misleading without due process risks harming journalists, who may face harassment, violence, or reprisals. In environments where media freedom is fragile, such stigmatization could jeopardize reporters' safety for merely doing their jobs.

Bangladesh is not alone in facing this issue. In neighboring India, the Bombay High Court recently struck down a similar initiative that sought to create a government-run fact-checking body under the IT Rules, 2023, deeming it unconstitutional. The court found the vague language in the rules posed a serious threat to free expression and could stifle criticism, echoing concerns similar to those raised in Bangladesh.

So, what should Bangladesh do to combat misinformation effectively?

The government must prioritize transparency over censorship. Instead of running its own fact-checking initiatives, Bangladesh should support independent, credible fact-checking bodies. This means creating transparent platforms, disclosing data, engaging with criticism, and investing in public media literacy. To counter misinformation—especially amid geopolitical disinformation campaigns—Bangladesh must ensure factual narratives are based on verifiable evidence, not state-controlled censorship.

Most importantly, the government must remember that the country belongs to its people—not to the interim administration, the bureaucracy, or any single political entity.

This shift away from democratic principles cannot be the legacy of those who fought for free speech or of leaders like Muhammad Yunus, who advocated for social justice. The Media Reform Commission, which has remained silent on this issue, should be held accountable for allowing this dangerous trend to continue.

If Bangladesh is to honor its constitutional commitments, these government-run “fact-checking” initiatives must be subjected to judicial review. The courts should evaluate whether they comply with the legality, necessity, and proportionality standards under Article 39 and whether they violate Article 7 by concentrating unchecked power in the executive.

The Media Reform Commission must urgently revisit its mandate to ensure that any government involvement in information verification is transparent, independent, and respects constitutional rights. Fact-checking should serve the public, not the powerful. This is the true test of whether Bangladesh remains a democracy that belongs to its people.

Redwan Ahmed is a journalist and former Visiting Scholar at the University of Southern California. He can be reached at thisisredwan@gmail.com.