Abstract
The media can pursue democratic roles only in the ways permitted by law. Their basic existence depends on law. If the media are restricted by law, they cannot be free even if the political and economic climate is good. Press freedom has been described as an indispensable element of democracy. The vigilant and dauntless media, endowed with investigative abilities, duty bound to be informative and structurally organised to be representative, is a requisite in modern democracy. Yet the media today are faced with legal obstacles strawn across their way which restrict their roles in democracy, justifiable or unjustifiable.This thesis work examined the laws in Bangladesh, to see how they limit press freedom in the interests of state and individual rights to reputation. The study examined whether the legal limitations are justified in a democracy or not. The analysis shows that due to their historical origins, original intentions and their practices, the laws in Bangladesh directly or indirectly restricts press freedom.Further analysis revealed that the successive governments retained some elements of authoritarianism in the media field. These governments particularly military regimes were not committed to develop democratic institutions but rather saw the laws as useful in dealing with its opponents. The study also showed that the government is aware of the restrictiveness or shortcomings in the laws relating to the media but is not willing to offer genuine and comprehensive reforms. The government still insists in retaining restrictive laws like Official Secrets Act, Criminal defamation, and Special Powers Act...