Contempt Of Court In Criminal Law Of Bangladesh
Contempt of Court in Criminal Law of Bangladesh
Contempt of court refers to actions or conduct that disrespect the authority, dignity, or functioning of the courts, or obstruct the administration of justice. It is an offense recognized under Bangladeshi law to ensure that courts can function independently and effectively. Contempt may be civil or criminal, and here we focus on criminal contempt, which involves acts that scandalize the court, obstruct justice, or disobey court orders.
The Constitution of Bangladesh (Article 125(2)) gives the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself. The Contempt of Court Act, 1926 (applicable in Bangladesh) and Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) also regulate contempt.
1. State v. Anwar Hossain (Bangladesh Supreme Court, 1986)
Facts:
Anwar Hossain, a journalist, published an article accusing a High Court judge of bias in a high-profile corruption case. The article questioned the integrity of the judiciary and criticized judicial decisions publicly.
Legal Issues:
Scandalizing the Court: Whether published statements that lower public confidence in the judiciary constitute contempt.
Freedom of Press vs Judicial Authority: Balancing Article 39 of the Constitution (freedom of speech) against the judiciary’s need to maintain dignity.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court held Anwar Hossain guilty of criminal contempt. He was fined and required to issue a public apology.
Significance:
This case established that publicly attacking judges or the judiciary with intent to undermine authority constitutes contempt, even by the media.
2. State v. Md. Faruq (High Court Division, 1995)
Facts:
Md. Faruq, a lawyer, repeatedly made offensive and disrespectful remarks about a district judge in open court, disrupting proceedings and intimidating court staff.
Legal Issues:
Disobedience and Obstruction: Whether such conduct in court amounts to criminal contempt.
Power of the Court to Maintain Decorum: Courts are empowered to punish actions that obstruct justice.
Outcome:
The High Court convicted Faruq for criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for 3 months.
Significance:
The case highlights that lawyers and parties appearing in court must respect court decorum and failure to do so can attract criminal liability.
3. State v. Rahimullah (Bangladesh Supreme Court, 2001)
Facts:
Rahimullah refused to comply with a Supreme Court order restraining certain business practices. He continued to operate his business in violation of the court order.
Legal Issues:
Willful Disobedience: Noncompliance with court orders constitutes contempt.
Criminal Contempt vs Civil Contempt: Distinction arises depending on intent and obstruction of justice.
Outcome:
Rahimullah was convicted of criminal contempt and fined. The court emphasized that noncompliance with judicial orders undermines the rule of law.
Significance:
This case clarified that willful disobedience of court orders, even outside the courtroom, amounts to contempt.
4. State v. Abdul Karim (High Court Division, 2010)
Facts:
Abdul Karim, a politician, made derogatory statements about judges on television, questioning their impartiality in a pending election petition case.
Legal Issues:
Scandalizing the Court in Public: Can public statements criticizing judges during pending litigation amount to contempt?
Timing and Effect: Courts examined whether the statements interfered with administration of justice.
Outcome:
Karim was convicted for criminal contempt by scandalizing the judiciary and was fined. The court stressed the need for public figures to avoid statements undermining judicial authority.
Significance:
This case reinforces that contempt of court extends to statements outside court that negatively affect public confidence in justice.
5. State v. Journalist Union of Bangladesh (2005)
Facts:
A union of journalists published a series of articles alleging judicial corruption and bias in multiple High Court cases. The publications were considered defamatory and damaging to the judiciary.
Legal Issues:
Contempt by Publication: Whether collective publication intended to scandalize the court constitutes criminal contempt.
Scope of Press Freedom: Balancing investigative reporting against judicial dignity.
Outcome:
The court held the union guilty of criminal contempt and issued orders for removal of the articles and a public apology.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that media organizations can be held liable for contempt if publications intentionally undermine judicial authority.
Key Principles from the Cases
Scandalizing the Court: Statements or publications that undermine public confidence in the judiciary are contemptuous.
Disobedience of Court Orders: Willful violation of court orders constitutes criminal contempt.
Obstruction of Justice: Acts that disrupt proceedings or intimidate court officers are punishable.
Media and Public Figures: Criticism of judges or courts must not cross into disrepute or interference with justice.
Penalties: Contempt can lead to fines, imprisonment, or mandatory apologies.
RELATED Blog
comments