HC decision on contempt law today The High Court would today deliver its decision on whether or not eight challenged stipulations in the Contempt of Court Act 2013 would remain in place. A two-judge bench on Wednesday rescheduled the verdict as jurist Kamal Hossain appeared and made forceful arguments to retain the stipulations. The bench of Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain was scheduled to deliver the verdict on Wednesday. Kamal Hossain in his submissions pointed out that the eight stipulations in the law were quite in keeping with the contempt of court laws in several countries including India, Pakistan and England and most of the SAARC countries. The matter came to the court following a public interest litigation writ petition preferred by two Supreme Court Lawyers, Asadauzzaman Siddique and Ayesha Khatun seeking repeal of the eight provisions on the ground that they were discriminatory. According to the petitioners the impugned provisions curtained the authority of the Supreme Court and favoured the bureaucrats. On Tuesday, the bench told Kamal Hossain that it was willing to hear his arguments, but not inclined to entertain his application to intervene on behalf of the Bangladesh Administrative Service Association president and local government division secretary Abu Alam Md Shahid Khan, and Prothom-Alo joint editor Mizanur Rahman Khan. Following the PIL writ petition challenging the legality of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13(2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act 2013, the bench issued a rule in April asking the government to explain why the impugned provisions would not be declared unconstitutional. The court completed the hearing in July. Kamal submitted that the petitioners challenged eight out of 20 provisions of the new contempt law without showing how they sought to violate the rights or the Constitution. He submitted that he was surprised to know that four out of five respondents, the secretaries at the President’s Office, the Prime Minister’s Office and the secretaries of the ministries of law and Parliament Secretariat did not turn up or file affidavits in opposition. ‘None appeared on their behalf to contest the ruling, although the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Law and Parliament were involved in enacting the law in 2013,’ he submitted. Section 4 of the law states that no publication constitutes contempt ‘if it is done in good faith’ and in a number of other specified circumstances, Kamal argued as the principle reflected old English law that goes back to 1935 as well as the England Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the Indian Contempt of Court Act 1971. ‘Section 4 of the contempt 2013 Act of Bangladesh provides a reasonable and legitimate defence to the offence of contempt of court,’ he said. He also argued that this section of the 2013 Act permitting ‘true and accurate reporting’ of court proceedings was uncontroversial. The right to freedom of the press,’ Kamal submitted, includes the right to publish information about pending cases ... [and the provision in the Act] provides a sensible balance which protects both the right to freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial. He also submitted that ‘the media has every right to report on the judiciary with fairness and accuracy and on issues such as the backlog of pending cases, inordinate delays, lethargic prosecution, numerous adjournments etc. Kamal strongly supported the retention of section 10 of the Act which precludes contempt proceedings being drawn up against a public servant where it has not been possible for that person to implement a judgment, order or direction of the court because of existing laws or other practical reasons on grounds of public interest and bona fide belief. Kamal cited several instances in which some High Court Division judges had initiated suo moto contempt charges against a number of individuals such as in one case a sitting judge of the High Court ordered the police to arrest a supervisor of the toll plaza at Bangabandhu Bridge for stopping his car and another vehicle of his entourage for not paying toll while crossing the bridge. He mentioned another instance where the court issued contempt rule upon the Inspector General of Police for his written comments while replying to certain queries in connection with the contempt case against the traffic policemen for not showing due respect to a sitting judge of the High Court. The court of Justice Dr. Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque told Kamal that if the dignity of a judge is maligned with an intention to malign the dignity of the court then it falls under contempt. Kamal referred Justice Faisal Mohammad Faizee’s case in which two editors were penalised for publishing reports regarding his LLB certificate fraud. Kamal Hossain also cited the instance of a High Court judge who had issued contempt rule on Biman crew for not allowing him to seat in the business class with an economy class ticket. Kamal Hossian was assisted by his juniors Sara Hossain and Arafat Hosen Khan. Writ petitioners’ lawyer Manzill Murshed opposed Kamal’s arguments that law passed by Parliament with support from two-thirds majority can’t be challenged by preferring a PIL writ petition. Manzill submitted that the writ petition was filed to uphold the freedom of expression journalists had enjoyed for last 40 years. He said that the new contempt law is discriminatory.
Posted on: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:50:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015