The High Court has annulled the Contempt of Courts Act, 2013 saying that the law was enacted only to protect journalists and public servants. The government will challenge the verdict, a deputy attorney general said.
The bench of Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain delivered the verdict Thursday in response to a writ petition filed challenging eight provisions of the law.
The court said as the sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13(2) of the Act were contrary to the constitution, so the whole statute was unconstitutional, and it had no legal effect.
Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Bishwajit Roy told the Dhaka Tribune that they had initiated the process of challenging the verdict. He hoped that a plea would be filed on Sunday with the Chamber Judge Court of the Appellate Division seeking a stay order on the judgement.
Abdul Halim, a Supreme Court lawyer, told the Dhaka Tribune: “The High Court cannot annul the whole Act as the petition does not challenge the whole of it. The court was supposed to issue a supplementary rule in this regard before giving the judgement.”
The Act was enacted on February 22 this year replacing the law of 1926 in the wake of huge demand from the journalists and public servants.
The law stipulates that publishing “objective and unbiased reports” on the court proceedings and fair comment on a judgement should not be contempt of court. In this regard, the High Court said: “Criticism must be within the periphery of some limits, since total freedom without restriction leads to chaos.”
The court also said: “If any person, who does not have any knowledge on a particular subject, makes criticisms, we can easily understand what the consequence may be.”
A newspaper editor was fined for publishing a report in 2005 claiming that former High Court judge Faisal Mahmud Faizee’s law degree was based on forged certificates. But later the report was found to be true.
On Thursday, the High Court termed it a “stray incident” and said such type of provision to protect the journalists could not be included in the law.
Taking part in the hearing on Wednesday, Dr Kamal Hossain said he would be happy if the court had cancelled the order of fine against the editor for “contempt of court.”
Referring to article 27 of the constitution, the court Thursday said it was surprising that the provision to protect the journalists in the Act “totally disregards all other citizens of the nation.” The constitutional provision says: “All citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law.”
After the judgement, Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque said: “The press is now a big power. We, in no way, want to limit the press. But it has to be within a certain limit. We every day take the help of the press, even in court. But the [Contempt of Court] law is made with a view to giving protection to only the two particular sectors the journalists and the public servants, which is not right.”
Over a news report on this petition proceedings published Thursday in a Bangla daily, the court said: “We cannot allow comments over any ongoing trial proceedings.”
The Act also states that if a contemptuous act is done by a public servant “with a good faith” following the existing laws, it shall not be considered as contempt of court. It also says no contempt charge can be brought against him if he tries properly to implement the judgement, order or directive of the court, but failed.
Concerning this, the court said the provision gave clear mandate to the government officials so that they could disregard the court’s order. If any order was not obeyed, they would have the “blanket of good faith” which is “not good for democracy.”
Earlier, the same bench on April 3 issued a rule asking the government to explain why the eight provisions should not be declared unconstitutional for allegedly curtailing the court’s authority.
Filed by lawyers Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and Ayeasha Khatoon, the petition challenged sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13(2) of the law. Lawyer Manzill Murshid moved the petition.