2013 contempt of court law discriminatory
The High Court yesterday released the full text of the judgment that scrapped the Contempt of Court Act, 2013, and restored the Contempt of Court Act, 1926, nine long years after the pronouncement of the verdict.
In the 38-page full verdict, the HC bench of Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain observed that the crux of the 2013 contempt law was to protect the government servants and journalists while disregarding the other citizens of the country. This is absolutely discriminatory when article 27 of the constitution stipulates that all the citizens are equal and deserve equal protection of law.
HC also disqualified the attorney general's office from appearing at court for any person alleged to be in contempt of court.
"Within the ambit of the instant [current] statute in question, it appears to have been made to protect a certain class of persons, those who are trying to bypass this provision of the constitution. It is also noteworthy that when a contempt proceeding is drawn against any particular person, attorney general's office is supposed to act as prosecutor but in the instant statute, the attorney general's office is made to defend them," the HC bench said in the full text of the verdict.
"Since contempt of court is a personal liability of the contemnor, neither the attorney general, additional attorney general, deputy attorney general nor any assistant attorney general should appear on behalf of any contemnor."
Earlier on September 26, 2013, the HC bench had declared the Contempt of Court Act, 2013, void, illegal and unconstitutional after a writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation by SC lawyers Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and Ayesha Khatoon, challenging the legality of sections 4, 5,6,7,9,10, 11 and 13(2) of the act (2013).
Responding to their petition, the HC verdict read, "Upon simple reading of the impugned sections 4,5,6,7,9,10,11 and 13(2), it appears that the whole statute is drafted and made to throttle the court's power disregarding articles 108, 112 and 27 of the constitution."
Section 4 of the act (2013) stated that innocent publications or distribution are not contempt of court, while section 6 said that bringing allegations against the presiding judge of a subordinate court is not a contempt of court.
The HC bench said section 5 of the 2013 act, which stated publication of impartial and authentic report is not contempt of court, has given a blank cheque to the journalists.
"The right to freedom of the press is guaranteed under article 39 (of the constitution), subject to law. Section 5 of the act [2013] tries to override the constitutional provision as enunciated in article 39 of the constitution," the verdict read.
As per section 7, publication of information on ongoing proceedings (of cases) in a chamber or close-door room except a few events does not constitute contempt of court.
Section 10 stated that contempt allegations cannot be brought against government officials for failure to implement court orders. Section 11 said the court can exempt an accused in a contempt of court case if he/she can provide satisfactory information in reply to a show cause notice.
According to section 13 (2), the court can pardon any accused in a contempt case if he/she offers unconditional apology before court.
"It is very surprising to note that the alleged sections protect the interest of only the government officials and journalists, totally disregarding all other citizens. It is time and again decided in different courts of different jurisdiction that the Supreme Court is a court of record and shall have all power of contempt itself. However, the impugned sections of the instant statute look like to have been made to curtail this power of this court, as provided in article 108 of the constitution," the HC bench said in the verdict.
About the long delay in releasing the full text of the judgment, Manzill Murshid, a lawyer who moved the writ petition before the HC bench, said, "There is no specific time limit for the High Court for releasing the full text of a verdict after its announcement."
He also said the HC has been exercising article 108 of the constitution and lower courts have been applying Contempt of Court Act, 1926 while dealing with the contempt of court cases after the HC rescinded the Contempt of Court Act, 2013.
Contacted, Attorney General AM Amin Uddin said he is yet to go through the HC verdict on the contempt of court law.
"I will discuss it with the government authorities concerned and take necessary steps in this regard," he added.
Comments