The Hon’ble Chief Justice has felt extremely uneasy over the remarks made in respect of him, for, he cannot give a public reply nor is he obliged to justify or explain to the Executive any matter falling within the domain of his administration. The Court expected more circumspection, understanding, discretion and judgment on the part of the Prime Minister because of the high office she holds in making offhand remarks in respect of constitutional functionaries which have been alleged to be contumacious.

Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, President, Supreme Court Bar Association 4 BLC (AD) 81.

Section 2—

In view of the compliance of the Court’s order by delivery of possession and tendering unqualified apology and also considering that contemner has retired from service, the contemner should be exonerated by accepting his apology. But if an officer is found to have wilfully avoided compliance of the order of the High Court Division he cannot be spared from the punishment for committing contempt of Court only on the ground of his retirement.

Gulshan Ara vs Jogonnath Dey and others 5 BLC 52.

Sections 2 and 3—

As the contemner has tendered unqualified apology and begs for mercy of the Court which is accepted considering his old age and ailing health but the same should not be construed as a leniency to anyone but be a warning to all concerned specially performing the functions of the Judicial Munshikhana of the Deputy Commissioners as the arms of this Court is long enough to catch and punish anyone how high so ever.

Almas Ali vs Sohrab Miah & others 2 BLC 66

Section 3—

Statements made by respondent in a zeal to protect the neutrality and independence of judiciary and it was not a criticism of any particular judge nor can it be termed as scandalisation of the judges of the Superior Court or the judiciary in any form as the constructive and honest criticism relating to appointment of the judges cannot be construed as contempt of Court.

Dr Ahmed Hussain vs Shamsul Huq Chowdhury 1 BLC 321.

Section 3–

It is clear from the two letters that the Bangladesh Shipping Corporation asked the respondent to submit a normal joining report in compliance with the trial Court’s decree enabling the Corporation to allow him to join without delay as the prayer made in the joining letter was beyond the terms of the decree obtained by the respondent and it was loaded with extraneous demands but the High Court Division has failed to consider the same as it transpires from the said two letters there was no disobedience shown to the Court’s decree and it is not understood as to how the appellant could be found guilty for alleged disobedience of the Court’s decree for 12 months and 16 days in the face of the said two letters written to the respondent.

SAM Iqbal vs State and another 3 BLC (AD) 125.