[XII of 1926]
The application for contempt proceeding against the Prime Minister is disposed of with the observation that nothing can be more embarrassing if the Chief Executive chooses to speak to the press involving the Chief Justice–In deciding whether the facts call for a contempt proceeding, the Appellate Division decides to opt for discretion–The Court expects more circumspection, understanding, discretion and judgment on the part of the Prime Minister in making off–hand remarks in respect of constitutional functionaries.
Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, President, Supreme Court Bar Association 51 DLR (AD) 68.
Advocates practicing before any Court should be careful to conduct themselves in such a manner so as not to lower the Court in the estimation of others which ultimately lower themselves in the estimation of others.
State vs Shahidul Alam Chowdhury and two others 51 DLR 380.
Applications for drawing up proceedings of contempt of Court against Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, are disposed of with a note of desire that the Hon’ble Prime Minister shall be more careful and respectful in making any statement or comment with regard to the Judiciary or the judges or the Courts of Bangladesh in future. Md Mozammal Hoque J.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) : In practice, this Division has been following the same path charted by the Appellate Division for taking cognisance of an offence of contempt.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing): A contempt proceeding is quasi–criminal in nature. The contemner is entitled to benefit of doubt, and since the Court is both prosecutor and judge, rule as to proof of guilt of the contemner must be strictly observed.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing): What could readily be read as contemptuous in 1900 or 1912 or 1936 is not so easily read now in the context of expanding rights guaranteed as fundamental to human existence under the Constitution.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J. (agreeing): Statements based on inaccurate assessments of situation, however grossly misreading those may be, cannot amount to contempt of court. Moreover, in the absence of mens rea, no contempt is established.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138
Per Md Abdur Rashid J. (agreeing): It is not correct to think that the judges are above law or there is no accountability of the judges under the Constitution. The sooner it is understood the better for the whole nation.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J. (agreeing) : The Prime Minister of the Republic is the leader of the House of the Nation. The Parliament comprises of members, both of the ruling party as well as of the opposition. The aggrieved members of the Parliament could have more opportunities and better scope to hold their leader to account in the Parliament for her statements. But they preferred to abdicate their constitutional privilege and submitted before the Court to punish their leader by this Division for infraction of the Constitution. Such novel step, unprecedented in the constitutional history, I am afraid, would not create any good precedent.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J. (agreeing) : The people are equally and strongly divided like the lawyers. Such division demands serious circumspection from the judiciary. Then the reason for such division is nowhere found except in the politics. The judiciary must guard against all chances of the party politics creeping into the holy precincts of the citadel of justice lest it ultimately fell victim to politics.
Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Section 2 –
Appellant was satisfied by obtaining a short order of stay and it is not clear as to what is the sum total of the High Court Division’s order of stay. No contempt proceeding can be drawn against the respondents.
Charandwip BKSS vs Deputy Commissioner, Cox’s Bazar 40 DLR (AD) 213.
Section 2–
Failure to obey any process of the Court, when other methods of enforcing the process are available, does not amount to a contempt of Court.
Abu Taiyab Miah vs Nurun Nabi Miah 46 DLR 561.
Section 2–
As soon as the executing Court comes to know of the stay order it will stay its hands till further order. If it does not do so, it not only acts illegally but will also be liable for contempt of the Court that passed the order.
Chairman, Kushtia Co–operative Industrial Union Ltd vs Mujibur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 219.
Section 2–
In a contempt matter there cannot be both justification and apology.
Chairman, Kushtia Co–operative Industrial Union Ltd. vs Mujibur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 219.
Section 2–
It is only in a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise, that the contemner must be punished.
Chairman, Kushtia Co–operative Industrial Union Ltd vs Mujibur Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 219.
Section 2–
Contempt by judicial officer– Unqualified apology– After considering the background of the case and the power to punish a person for contempt in extreme necessity, only to keep the flow of administration smooth and undisturbed, Court does not accept the apology but considers this as a mitigating factor and, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, the Court is inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. The contemner Assistant Judge is accordingly let off with an admonition only.
Ayub Ali Mohaldar vs Md Shahjahan 44 DLR 101.
Section 2–
Contempt by Judicial officer ignoring Advocate’s certificate–A certificate issued by the concerned Advocate informing the contemner Assistant Judge about the issuance of the Rule and stay of the Execution Case by the High Court Division should have been considered authentic enough. The conduct displayed by the contemner
Assistant Judge to ignore the Advocate’s certificate and application for stay constituted wilful disobedience of the Court’s Order. The authority of the Court has been undermined and the public confidence in the administration of justice shaken. This cannot be allowed and the contemner’s ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Ayub Ali Mohaldar vs Md Shahjahan 44 DLR 101.
Section 2–
Allegation of contempt by persons having no notice of the Court’s rule– In a contempt matter, a Court should not be touchy and no one should be held guilty of contempt of Court unless there is a wilful disrespect of a Court’s order with knowledge of it.
Ayub Ali Mohaldar vs Md Shahjahan 44 DLR 101.
Section 2–
Contempt of Commission of Inquiry–Jurisdiction–The Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1956 cannot be regarded as the High Court Division or a subordinate court and as such the High Court Division has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of contempt of the Commission.
Dr. Md Mahiuddin vs Dr. Hasanuzzaman 44 DLR 535.
Section 2–
The contemner being the Managing Director of Bangladesh Shipping Corporation and now Comptroller General of Defence showed total disrespect to the judgment and decree of the courts and did not offer any expression of sorrow, repentance, remorse or apology for his failure to act on the orders of the court. He is guilty of contempt of the courts and as such sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and fine of Taka 1000.00.
Raquibuddin Ahmed vs SAM Iqbal and another 50 DLR 209.
Section 2–
In a case where no execution case is filed, the contempt petition avoiding such proceeding based on the ground of inaction on the part of the Government Officers and the defendant is misconceived.
Rafiqul Alam vs Secretary, Ministry of Works, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR 628.
Section 2–
Where the writing contains scandalous language to bring the Court into disrespect and castigates its dignity, its majesty and challenges its authority specially when the writer has knowledge about the contempt law and working of courts of law he commits contempt of Court.
Judges of the High Court Division vs Ashok Kumar Kamaker and others 48 DLR 179.
Section 2–
Where the writings published are proved to be that of the particular writer a lenient view may be taken in case of the Editor, the printer and the Publisher for such news item or the article.
Judges of the High Court Division bs Ashok Kumar Karmaker and others 48 DLR 179.
Section 2–
An inexperienced young Deputy Commissioner became distraught with Court proceedings and gave vent to his vengeful feelings by making objectionable remarks against judicial officers which he would not have done with a little
more experience and guidance. The sentence imposed upon him for contempt of Court is set aside. He is however censured for objectionable remarks and warned to be careful in future.
Abdul Haque (Md) Deputy Commissioner vs District Judgeship 51 DLR (AD) 15
Section 2–
This case should serve as a reminder to all concerned that the Court will not hesitate to deal with member of the subordinate judiciary if he is not cautious, restrained, respectful and deferential with regard to the highest judiciary.
Ashok Kumar Karmaker vs State 51 DLR (AD) 235
Section 2–
The Sessions Judge had no authority to accept the apology tendered by the contemner.
Anwarul Hoque (Md) vs Golam Mahmud and Md Hohsin 51 DLR 242.
Section 2–
If editors, printers and publishers publish news or comments even by anonymous author to malign and scandalise this Court hands of this Court are long enough to catch and punish them.
Shahidul Islam vs Mahbubul Alam and others 51 DLR 485.
Section 2–
If any presiding officer of any subordinate court fails to comply with any order or direction of this court made in any case then such officer is not only guilty of contempt of this court but also of insubordination.
State vs Farooq Ahmed, Subordinate Judge 51 DLR 515.
Section 2–
While the judgment of the author– Judge was sub–Judice under appeal and the appeal was being heard in this Division he ought not to have published any opinion on such a subjudice matter.
Shamsuddin Ahmed vs Md Gholam Rabbani & Others 52 DLR (AD) 81.
Section 2–
Contemner, having shown respect to this court and denied the allegations which is supported by the rejoinder published in the three newspapers, the contemner is not guilty of contempt of this court but he is a victim of the situation created by the publication of news.
Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association vs Shah Azizur Rahman, MP 52 DLR 159.
Section 2–
Contempt of Court proceeding is a quasi–criminal proceeding–In such a proceeding the petitioner must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the contemner has deliberately violated the Court’s direction.
Suhel Ahmed Chowdhury vs Salahuddin Ayubi and others 54 DLR (AD) 82
Section 2–
The High Court Division meant it is the office of the Secretary which is responsible for noncompliance of the directive but in contempt matters the personal liability is first and foremost consideration.
Suhel Ahmed Chowdhury vs Salahuddin Ayubi and others 54 DLR (AD) 82
Section 2–
By making undue delay in carrying out the judgment of the courts oflaw the respondents are committing contempt of courts.
Wahidul Haque vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 165
Section 2–
The contemner taking advantage of not getting stay extended by the petitioner in time hurriedly took up the cases for hearing and passed order making ex parte the Trade· Mark Application pending before the Court infructuous – This action of the contemner appears to be contempt of this Court.
Elders Ltd vs Sunil Chandra Chowdhury and anr 54 DLR 226.
Section 2–
Any attempt to pollute the stream of justice before it has begun to flow or to interfere with its proper and unfettered administration will amount to a contempt.
Elders Ltd vs Sunil Chandra Chowdhury and anr 54 DLR 226.
Section 2–
Contempt proceeding is quasi–criminal and anybody can file an application for initiating contempt proceeding if there be any ground.
Elders Ltd vs Sunil Chandra Chowdhury and anr 54 DLR 226
Section 2–
It is the effect of the contemner’s action which is to be taken into consideration in deciding whether a contempt is committed or riot.
Solaiman (Md) and others vs Md Mosharaf Hossain Khan and others 54 DLR 531
Section 2–
Apology with an attempt to justify the act complained of is no apology at all.
Solaiman (Md) and others vs Md Mosharaf Hossain Khan and others 54 DLR 531.
Section 2–
Bank Companies (Amendment) Act, 2003 introduced prospectively will have no bearing upon the AGMs for the years in question but ignoring this aspect the contemner opposite parties repeatedly hammered upon the Chairman designate to give his opinion as to the interpretation of this new section and the circular of the Bangladesh Bank. It appears in the name of seeking advice or guideline from the Chairman designate the opposite parties have obstructed the course of justice and flouted this court’s order.
Akhteruzzaman Chowdhury vs Hamidul Huq, MD, UCBL and another 56 DLR 73.
Section 2–
Contempt proceeding is a quasi–criminal proceeding and like any other criminal proceeding the contemners are also entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
Akhteruzzaman Chowdhury vs Hamidul Huq, MD, UCBL & anr 56 DLR 73
Section 2–
In the affidavit of explanation the case of the contemners is, that they have no authority to hold the AGM of the Bank but I have already pointed out that the letter dated 27– 7–03 written by the contemner No. 2 to the Chairman designate Mr KZ Alam, contemner No. 1, informed him that they have decided to wait till the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 3482 of2003 and this fact alone establishes beyond doubt that the contemners have no or any regard for this court.
Akhteruzzaman Chowdhury vs Hamidul Huq, MD, UCBL and another 56 DLR 73
Section 2(1)–
As the Arbitrator is not a Court at all within the. meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure/there can be no question of his being subordinate to High Court Division. Hence no contempt proceedings can be drawn against the opposite parties.
Begum Lutfunnessa vs N Ahmed 40 DLR 23:/.
Section 3–
In the impugned statement there is nothing relating to any judgment or to a person acting as a judge–it is over the activity of the Chief Election Commissioner, not of a judge–it is with no motive/o lower down the dignity of the Supreme Court , and as such it constitutes no contempt.
Dr Ahmed Hussain, Senior Advocate vs Shamsul Huq Chowdhury Senior Advocate 48 DLR 155.
Section 3–
Adequate remedy having been provided against disobedience of an injunction order issued under Order XXXIX of the Code, as provided in Order XXXIX, rule 2, a contempt petition is not maintainable on this score.
Momena Begum vs Dhaka City Corporation and others 55 DLR 43.
Section 3–
An apology usually mitigates the offence and if it is unreserved, the court may accept it.
Sirajul Islam (Md) vs Wahidul Haque 55 DLR 272.