The High Court yesterday convicted Mizanur Rahman Khan, joint editor of the daily Prothom Alo, for contempt of court as it found his article on the daily “grossly contemptuous for the judiciary.”
The court sentenced Mizanur for the period he was standing in the dock for four days and yesterday until rising of the court after the delivery of the judgement (2:15pm to 2:40pm).
It also warned him not to publish any such article or comments or make any remarks in future attacking the authorities of the court as well as judges. However, accepting the unconditional apology sought by Editor Matiur Rahman, also publisher and printer of the daily, the court exonerated him from the charges.
The bench of Justice Naima Haider and Justice Zafar Ahmed delivered the verdict exercising its inherent power as a court of record under article 108 of the constitution.
The order came in view of the reason laid down by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in Moazzem Hossain case cited in Bangladesh Legal Decisionof 1983 - a journal which publishes judgements of the Supreme Court.
The court said: “Since Mizanur Rahman Khan has realised that by writing the libellous and highly contumacious article he has committed gross contempt of court and sought unconditional apology in the midst of the hearing at 12:15pm on March 11, 2014 and stood before the court with folded hands, although unconditional apology came at a much belated stage, this court refrains from sentencing him for any further time but imposes a penalty of Tk5,000.”
It said: “While considering the affidavit affirmed by Mizanur in its entirety it can be said the contemnor tried to traverse two ways: on the one hand he tried to substantiate his article and the other he tried to say ‘ifs and buts’... and sought mercy of the court.
“We are of the view that by writing the under the caption ‘Ek minite jamin kibhabe’ [How bail is granted in one minute?] Mizanur Rahman Khan has questioned the authority of this court and placed this court in controversy in the estimation of the people at large causing gross contempt of court.
“It has been noticed by this court that previously he has written some contumacious articles against this court and it is understood that some contempt proceedings are still pending.”
The bench observed that editors of responsible newspapers should be aware that it is courts of law and not newspaper readers who have to try certain issues while “the courts alone are empowered to determine.
“The character and the legal consequences of any publication about conduct of judges are certainly matters for courts to determine. Editors of newspaper are expected to also know something of the special place of this court in the constitution which amply protects its judges so that they may not be exposed to opprobrious attacks by either malicious or ignorant persons.”
The court observed: “It is well-recognised that the press provides the principle vehicle of expression of their views to citizens. It has been said freedom of the press is the arch of the covenant of democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institution. But, like other rights, this cannot be an unfettered right. If confidence in judiciary goes, the administration of justice definitely suffers.”
The court expected that the daily and other print and electronic media would be cautious in the future in respect of publishing any articles or comments thereby “questioning the authority of the judiciary in the name of freedom of press.”
On March 2, the court, on its own motion, issued a contempt rule against Matiur and Mizanur and also issued another contempt rule against the two journalists after a Supreme Court lawyer submitted a petition. The court also summoned Mizanur to appear in person for five days.
The bench in the judgement said: “The contempt rules were not issued to protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned.”
It declared only the operative order of the judgement after hearing both the sides for four days since March 6. Details would be found after the release of the full text, said Justice Naima Haider.
After taking seat at the courtroom at 2:25pm, the bench directed Mizanur, who sat on a bench beside Matiur, to stand in the dock.
Then Justice Zafar Ahmed drew the attention of Supreme Court lawyer Shahdin Malik to a report published on the daily which quoted the lawyer as saying: “Contempt proceedings are dropped against two newspapers – the daily Samakal and the daily Naya Diganta and seven other journalists.”
The judge asked Shahdin why you did not say that they were exempted for seeking unconditional apology.
“After reading the report, what will the readers think?” Justice Zafar said adding that the judges were dumb and they could not talk outside the courtroom.
Then Shahdin sought unconditional apology for not saying “unconditional apology was sought by the two dailies and seven journalists.”
Mizanur, after the verdict, told the reporters that he would take next decision after consulting his lawyer and getting copy of the judgement.
Though he did not expect such judgement, Mizanur said he had respect to the ruling.
