Gambling prevention bill passed; police can now search, seize evidence without prior court approval

Highlights

• The Gambling Prevention Bill 2026 was passed by voice vote.
• The law empowers police to search and seize evidence without prior court approval.
• Opposition MPs raise concerns over the provision, citing potential conflict with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Parliament today (30 June) unanimously passed the Gambling Prevention Bill 2026, replacing the Public Gambling Act, 1867 with a new legal framework aimed at preventing gambling, online gambling, online betting and similar activities.

The bill was passed by voice vote after Home Affairs Minister Salahuddin Ahmed moved it for passage.

Earlier, proposals from eight lawmakers seeking public opinion and further scrutiny of the bill were rejected by voice vote. Proposed amendments to the bill were also rejected.

During the discussion, Rangpur-4 lawmaker Akhter Hossain questioned Clause 36 of the bill, which empowers police to conduct searches and seize evidence without prior court approval.

Responding to the concern, the home affairs minister said gambling has increasingly shifted to online platforms, cyberspace and websites, making it impractical in many cases to obtain court approval before conducting searches.

"By the time court permission is obtained, there is a strong possibility that the location and evidence of the offence will have disappeared," he said.

He added that police already possess inherent powers under various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to conduct searches, seize evidence and make arrests at places where offences are being committed, and that the same principle has been incorporated into the new law.

Opposition lawmaker Nazibur Rahman criticised several provisions of the bill, particularly Clause 36.

He said Section 523 of the CrPC allows police to seize property without prior court approval but requires officers to inform a magistrate immediately afterwards and obtain the necessary authorisation.

While describing the Gambling Prevention Bill as a timely piece of legislation, Nazibur argued that granting police unconditional search and seizure powers under Clause 36 could create inconsistencies with the Code of Criminal Procedure.