Second
Section 3 of the Digital Security Act 2018 is at the root of this problem. It states that if any provision of any other law is inconsistent with any provision of this Act, the provisions of the DSA shall prevail. Such a provision is also present in the Children’s Act 2013. But as a subsequent law, the DSA provision is generally preferred.
Justice Imanuddin of the Appellate Division said in a judgment that, although the Children’s Act is designed only for children, it remains a special law even among other special laws and in that sense, it will be given due priority. So as per this judgment, if there are allegations of any offense under DSA, it is the Children Act which should be given priority in arrest, custody, bail, trial and everything related to the accused. But when it comes to the actual implementation of the law, it mostly does not happen for two reasons. 1. Many policemen are not aware of this decision given by the Appellate Division. 2. While the age of the accused is entered in the complaint letter at random, there is no provision under the DSA to hold the police accountable for the same.
The problem is that a section in the proposed Cyber Security Act is almost identical to Section 3 of the DSA. That section of the DSA states that the Right to Information Act will get priority only in the case of Right to Information. The Cyber Security Act being implemented in place of the DSA also says the same. But if the suffering of children is to be mitigated under this act, the priority of the child act should be specifically mentioned and in case of fudging of age (ignoring birth registration or school certificate), the police should face punishment. Have to do