Contempt of Court
Following the publication of an Article under the caption “The parliament and the Judiciary at Loggerheads” written by the appellant, a sou motu rule was issued—Held : This is not to say that such kinds of conduct are to be condoned because of age, inexperience and fresh entry into service. This case should serve as a reminder to all concerned that the court will not hesitate to deal with a member of the subordinate judiciary if he is not cautious, restrained, respectful and deferential with regard to the highest judiciary. We highly disapprove of the manner and the language with which the offending article was written and warn the author that any repetition of the same will be | visited with punishment of even a greater scale, not to be condoned on any plea whatsoever.
Ashak Kumar Karmaker Vs. The State 8 BLT(AD)-6.
Contempt of Court
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 a sub-judice matter before this Division— the learned Judge will desist from committing such an act in future which is not in keeping with judicial propriety.
Shamsuddin Ahmed Vs. Mr. Justice Mohammad Gholam Reabani & Ors. 8 BLT (AD)-79.
Section-2
Whether the Prime
Minister committed contempt of court by her statements in the interview with BBC
We have gone through thestatement made by the Prime Minister to BBC and meticulously considered and analyzed the same as a whole. It is submitted that such a statement is really painful, unfortunate, unhappy, unpalatable and prima facte appears to be highly objectionable and contemptuous because it had threatened and shaken the very confidence of the people upon the judiciary as a whole—Held: 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. [Paras- 8 & 10]
Mainul Hossain & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8 BLT(HCD)-410.
Mens rea
Held: I have read the above statements in between the lines. Many a times. The statements arc no doubt critical, in general, of the Courts and also of lawyers. The statements are also not accurate, factually. In matters of bait, the weaknesses in the process of investigation by the police, failure of the law officers appearing for the prosecution and the loopholes in the judgment delivery system as were pointed out in the submissions of the learned Counsels on both the sides were not reflected. Failure of the administration in handling the situation was also
missing in the statements. But. the statements based on inaccurate assessments of situation, however gross misreading those may be. cannot be tantamount to be contempt of court. Moreover, in the absence of mens rea. no contempt is established.
Mainul Hossain & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8 BLT (HCD)-410.
Legal recourse—should not exceed six months
Duty of the government officials—willful disobedience —Of course, we are aware of the fact -that after passing of a judgment by a court against government the government may require some time to take decision as to whether it will prefer any appeal or avail any other legal recourse against that judgment or whether that judgment will be given effect to. But for taking this decision, an indefinite period cannot be
allowed. The Government must take this decision within a reasonable period which may be 3 or 4 months but should not exceed six months. The Failure or refusal ipf the government to implement or give effect to the judgments and orders of the courts (even if these are declaratory in nature like those of the present case) within this reasonable periods amounts to wilful disobedience to or flouting of courts orders.
Wahidul Haque Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. l0BLT (HCD)-36
Contempt of Court
Unconditional apology—in the explanation, learned Joint District Joint District judge has also tendered unconditional apology. We accept the explanation with the apology. We also expect of his that he would be more circumspect and careful about his conduct in the discharge of him duties in future.
Mofizur Rahman Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. Most Layla Begum & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-268.
Section-3
When High Court Division directed police for compliance of an order within a time frame it is to be executed and enforced in full within the time and in the manner specified therein. The law enforcer in course of enforcement of court order should not put any artificial meaning or construction or execute any order partly half heartedly and haphazardly thereof or just as matter of free choice, out of whims and caprice but promptly obey and enforce order strictly timely and in full that he is required by such order to do. In case any difficulty arises in understanding the meaning and purports thereof concerned police personnel is to seek guidance from his superior or the of court which issued the order immediately, for failure to obey and comply with any order or direction passed by the High Court Division knowingly and deliberately the concerned officer come under the mischief ‘of offence of contempt of court within the meaning of section 3 of the contempt of court Act. 1926 (XII of 1926) and he is liable to be committed and punished under the said Act.
The State Vs. O. C. Kafrul & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-511.
Section-3
Apology — An apology usually mitigates the offence and if it is unreserved, the court may accept it. According to the first proviso of Section 3 of the Contempt of court Act 1926 the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Md. Sirajul Islam Vs. Wahidul Haque 11 BLT (HCD)-168.