Contempt verdict tomorrow

The High Court will deliver its verdict tomorrow on the contempt of court rule on the Bangla daily Prothom Alo.
The HC bench of Justice Naima Haider and Justice Zafar Ahmed set the date after hearing the concluding arguments on the rule.
During yesterday's proceedings, Prothom Alo Editor Matiur Rahman and Joint Editor Mizanur Rahman Khan made statements clarifying their positions on the article for which the HC bench had earlier issued a contempt rule.
The court on March 2 issued the rule on Prothom Alo for publishing an article headlined, "Minute-e Ekti Agam Jamin Kibhabe" (how is it possible to grant an anticipatory bail every minute), on February 28.
Matiur Rahman and Mizanur Rahman Khan were asked to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for publishing the article.
The court issued the rule in a suo moto move after some lawyers, including barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud and barrister Rafique-Ul Huq, had drawn the judges' attention to the article by Mizanur.
In line with Monday's court order, the Prothom Alo editor yesterday morning appeared before the court to explain the affidavit that contained his reply to the contempt rule.
Advocate Shahdeen Malik, counsel for the leading Bangla daily, submitted the affidavit to the court on Monday.
During a half-an-hour session of questioning from 11:30am, Justice Naima Haider told Matiur Rahman that the bench had asked him to appear before it not to malign him.
She asked the editor whether he had signed the affidavit consciously. He replied in the affirmative.
When the judge inquired whether he had gone through the newspaper article, Matiur said he had read the article before and after its publication.
Justice Naima Haider then asked him whether he felt there was anything wrong with the report after reading it.
Matiur said Prothom Alo is being published for the last 15 years. “We always try to be careful, and no report or article has been published [by Prothom Alo] to malign the court.
“The newspaper is published every day containing 24 to 32 pages. As the editor, it is not possible for me to see every line or sentence of the reports and articles. There may be errors, but it does not mean that we publish news to slander the court,” the editor said.
Asked whether there is any code of conduct for the media, Matiur said the press council and the press act are there to regulate the profession of journalism.
Besides, Prothom Alo has rules and regulations to control its journalists and staff, he said.
When the judge wanted to know whether the writer or the editor is responsible for an article in a newspaper, Matiur replied that as the editor of Prothom Alo, he is also responsible for Mizanur's article.
Justice Naima Haider said the article was written in such a manner that reflected the writer's anger, particularly at the bench led by her.
“My reputation soared after the publication of this article. Everyone knows me now. Thanks to Prothom Alo,” she said.
The editor said the article's intention was not to malign or hurt anyone or any community.
The media is always in favour of the independence of the judiciary and is aware of its dignity, prestige and honour, he said.
If the court feels the article has hurt it, the newspaper can only regret and apologise to the court, Matiur said.
The court exonerated the editor from personal appearance.
Shahdeen Malik argued before the court that according to the constitution and High Court rules, the HC cannot issue a contempt rule on anyone or punish him or her on contempt charge.   
At one stage of the proceedings, Advocate Zainul Abedin wanted to know from the bench whether Mizanur would apologise to the court or contest the contempt rule.
On permission from the court, Mizanur said he has been writing about the judiciary for long, and the main purpose of his write-ups was to bring about reforms in the judiciary.
“I had no intention to hurt the court. If the court is hurt by any specific word or sentence in my article, I apologise for it,” said Mizanur.
Rokanuddin Mahmud said the Prothom Alo editor had given a praiseworthy reply, and further hearing on the rule was not necessary.
PRESS CLUB CONCERNED
The Jatiya Press Club has expressed concern over the court's contempt rule on three dailies, sweeping comments of some lawyers about journalists and summoning of two journalist leaders by the High Court.
“Such attempts leave the media and judiciary pitted against each other,” said a statement issued by Jatiya Press Club President Kamal Uddin Sabuj and General Secretary Syed Abdal Ahmad yesterday.
At a recent hearing of a case at the High Court, some lawyers made derogatory comments about journalists, it read. The court summoned Dhaka Reporters Unity president and general secretary for issuing statements protesting such remarks.
At the same time, the court issued a contempt ruling against Samakal and Nayadiganta for publishing the statements of the two journalist leaders.
The Jatiya Press Club called upon all to refrain from making any sweeping comments on any profession, and requested the intervention of the chief justice in finding an amicable solution to the situation.
The statement noted that the judiciary and media work hand in hand in upholding democracy and freedom of the press. The media in Bangladesh too has been playing a strong role in ensuring the freedom of the judiciary.
“There is a tradition of good relations between the media and judiciary in this country,” it said.
The statement also noted that journalists, like all other citizens, are not above the law. The law will take its natural course if there are any specific allegations against the media or anyone related to it.
There is also scope for correction in case of any lapses on the part of journalists, the statement said, adding if any news item hurts anybody, it does not mean that it was intentional.