The Supreme Court has found the daily Janakantha Editor and Publisher Atiqullah Khan Masud and its Executive Editor Swadesh Roy guilty of contempt of court.
The six-member Appellate Division bench led by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha yesterday sentenced the contemnors to confinement until rising of the court. The verdict was pronounced around 10:15am and the judges left the courtroom around 1:15pm.
The court also ordered each of them to pay a fine of Tk10,000 to be contributed to two charitable organisations within one week; in failure, they will have to suffer seven days’ simple imprisonment.
In its short order, the court said that it would give some guidelines in the detailed judgement as various questions were raised regarding the authority of the highest court to give punishment for contempt of court.
After the verdict, the court held proceedings of some other cases.
Other members of the bench were Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana, Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, Justice Md Imman Ali and Justice Hasan Foez Siddique.
“We have accepted the verdict. After the full verdict is pronounced, we will take the decision of seeking a review,” contemnors’ lawyer Salahuddin Dolon told reporters.
At a briefing, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam said: “The court said in its observation that the slandering of the judiciary and the judges cannot be tolerated. Free speech does not mean it will be unbridled.”
On July 29, after the apex court gave its final verdict in the appeal case of war criminal Salauddin Quader Chowdhury upholding his death penalty, the Supreme Court issued a contempt rule over an article published in the daily Janakantha that questioned the conduct of judges in the case.
In the article, Swadesh Roy questioned how Salauddin’s family members had met one of the judges. He also said that the prime minister had to prevent some judges from going on a foreign tour, initiated by an organisation affiliated with the BNP-Jamaat alliance.
During the hearings, the defence submitted a petition for the formation of a new bench without the chief justice. He also produced a transcript of a telephone conversation between the chief justice and another judge.
The court yesterday said: “Article 39 of the constitution has given freedom of thought and conscience to the citizens of the country but such freedom of thought and conscience is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the security of the state, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court.”
It said that any publication during the pendency of any matter in any court of law is also contempt.
“In determining this effect, the intention of the printer or author in the publication is not of any consequence. What we are concerned with is that we should not permit any one to poison the fountain of justice. This would be a grave interference with the administration of justice.
“...If the chief justice is criticised for acts done in his administrative capacity this also amounts to contempt. The criticism should be fair and not made with oblique motive or with the object of maligning the justice delivery system and lowering the majesty of the law and dignity of the court in the estimation of the public.”
