Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Order XXXIX Rule 2(3)

As there is an adequate remedy against disobedience of an injunction order issued under order 39 of the Code, as provided in order 39 rule 2, a contempt petition is not maintainable on this score.

Momena Begum v. Dhaka City Corporation and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 283.

Ref: Bahawal alias Bholoo v. The state 14 DLR (SC) 273=PLD 1962 SC 476; In re: Clements, Republic of Costa Rica v. Eglanger (1876)46 LJCJ 375; Dr. M.O. Gani v. Dr. A. N.M. Mahmood 16DLR(SC)463.


What constitutes contempt of court and punishment for committing contempt of court?

A bonafide and honest criticism of a judicial exercise is permissible only when it is aimed at improving its quality by way of healthy and constructive criticism. But when the writing contains scandalous and offensive language to bring the Court into disrespect and disrepute and castigates its dignity and majesty and it challenges its authority, the writer being a member of the subordinate judiciary, commits contempt of court. The offending observations contained in the article in question have undoubtedly cast aspersions on the courage and ability of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the same do amount to contempt of court.

The Judge’s of the High Court Division Vs Ashok Kumar Karmaker and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 233.

Ref: Quintin Hogg Case, (1958) 2 V,7LR 1206; Special Reference No.1 of 1964, 1965 (SC)745; 16 DLR 535 (S.C.); 46 DLR 555— Cited.


Punishment for contempt of Court

The impugned statement by the respondent published in the daily newspapers neither directly nor indirectly imputes any aspersion to a Judge and the Court nor does it contain any scandalous statement against a Judge or the judiciary to lower down its image in the estimation of the public in general but it serves as a constructive criticism relating to the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and as such it does not constitute contempt of the Court. The disputed statement or any part of it makes no reference to the judgment of any of the Judges of either Division of the Supreme Court. The suggestion for constitution of a six-man committee, including the Law Minister, the Speaker, the learned Chief Justice and two other Senior Judges of the Appellate Division and one Member from the Bar Association and one Member from the Bar Council for appointment of Supreme Court Judges appears to be an honest criticism of the constitutional provision relating to the mode of appointment of Supreme Court Judges.

Dr. Ahmed Husain, Senior Advocate Vs. Shamsul Huq Chowdhury, Senior Advocate, 16 BLD (HCD)

Ref: 16 DLR 535(SC)—Cited.