Contempt of Court Law in Bangladesh

Introduction 

The term Contempt of Court refers to actions that disrespect or undermine the authority, dignity, or functioning of the judiciary. It can encompass a wide range of behavior, from disobeying court orders to making disparaging remarks about the judiciary. In Bangladesh, the issue of contempt of court is governed by judicial precedents, as there is no specific statutory law addressing the matter. The country’s legal framework on contempt is primarily based on Article 108 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which grants the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of court, but leaves the application of this power to judicial discretion and previous case law. 

Historical Background of Contempt of Court in Bangladesh 

Contempt of court laws have deep roots in the South Asian legal tradition, particularly in Bangladesh, where preserving the independence and dignity of the judiciary has always been of utmost importance. The origins of contempt laws in the Indian subcontinent can be traced back to the British colonial era, where such laws were designed to protect the courts from any actions that could potentially undermine their authority. Bangladesh inherited these legal principles when it gained independence in 1971, and the Contempt of Court Act, 1926, which had been in force during British rule, continued to be the main legal framework governing contempt proceedings. 

Under the Contempt of Court Act, 1926, contempt is categorized into two types: civil contempt and criminal contempt. Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of court orders, whereas criminal contempt involves acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the judiciary, such as making statements or taking actions that are considered disrespectful to the courts. While the law aimed to maintain the dignity of the judiciary, it also imposed restrictions on free speech and press freedom, especially when it came to reporting on judicial proceedings and criticizing court decisions. 

Constitutional Framework 

While Bangladesh does not have a specific statute governing contempt of court, the Constitution of Bangladesh, under Article 108, provides the Supreme Court with the authority to make orders for the investigation and punishment of contempt. Specifically, it reads: 

According to Article 108 of the Constitution - "The Supreme Court shall have power to make orders for the investigation of, and punishment for, any contempt of itself."  

This constitutional provision implies that the Supreme Court possesses inherent powers to handle contempt cases. Over the years, judicial decisions have played a crucial role in defining the scope and application of this power. 

As there is no specific Contempt of Court Act, the principles surrounding contempt are derived from case law, where the courts have defined and expanded the contours of contempt of court. 

The Legal Framework for Contempt of Court in Bangladesh 

While contempt law in Bangladesh evolved from the Contempt of Court Act, 1926, this law lacked specific procedural guidelines for handling contempt cases. As a result, the legal process for contempt cases was derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898, and various rules governing the High Court Division (HCD) and Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. These procedural inconsistencies often led to confusion in how contempt laws were applied. 

The Contempt of Court Act, 1926  

The Contempt of Court Act, 1926, served as the primary legal framework for contempt in Bangladesh for several decades. Under the Act, contempt was categorized into civil and criminal contempt. However, this law lacked detailed procedural provisions, leading to inconsistencies in its application. It also did not provide clear guidelines on when the judiciary could take suo moto action or impose penalties, resulting in a relatively unregulated process that often left room for ambiguity. 

Procedure for Dealing with Contempt Cases 

Contempt proceedings in Bangladesh are largely governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898. The following procedural steps are crucial for contempt cases: 

1. CrPC Sections 480-487: These sections deal with the general procedures for contempt committed in the presence of the court (e.g., disruptions or insults during court hearings). 
2. High Court Division (HCD): The HCD has the jurisdiction to handle contempt committed in subordinate courts, although the HCD itself is generally barred from handling contempt punishable under the Penal Code. In such cases, subordinate courts may deal with the issue directly. 
3. Appellate Division: The Appellate Division has specific procedural rules for contempt cases within its jurisdiction. These rules allow the Appellate Division to take suo moto (self-initiated) action in contempt cases. 

The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2008: Judicial Review 

The Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2008, was introduced by the military-backed Caretaker Government with the intention of regulating contempt cases more explicitly. However, this ordinance was met with criticism from various quarters and was ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2010. The Court ruled that the power to punish contempt was an inherent power of the judiciary, one that could not be curtailed by legislation. 

Key Issues Addressed by the Court 

1. Unconditional Power of the Judiciary: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the power to punish contempt is inherent under Article 108 of the Bangladesh Constitution, which grants the judiciary the authority to protect its dignity, subject to law. The Court found that this power could not be limited by any legislation, including the 2008 ordinance. 
2. Time Limits for Contempt Proceedings: The ordinance imposed a strict timeline for initiating contempt proceedings, but the Court rejected this limitation. The Court held that contempt could be a continuing offense, and therefore, a strict time limit for initiating proceedings was not reasonable. 
3. Media Exemptions: The ordinance proposed exemptions for media reports on judicial matters or discussions about judicial conduct. The Court rejected this provision, emphasizing that such cases must be assessed individually based on the impact of the media’s actions on public confidence in the judiciary. 
4. Protection for Public Servants: Provisions that offered special protection for public servants from contempt charges were also struck down by the Court, reinforcing the principle that all individuals must comply with court orders and respect the judiciary’s authority. 

Types of Contempt of Court 

The issue of contempt in Bangladesh is categorized into three primary types, as derived from case law and judicial interpretation: 

(a) Scandalization of the Court 

One of the most serious forms of contempt is the scandalization of the court. This involves any act that tarnishes or undermines the authority, impartiality, or dignity of the court, including making disparaging remarks about judges or judicial decisions. Scandalizing the judiciary can be seen as an attempt to erode public confidence in the judicial process. For example, making unsubstantiated claims about a judge’s integrity or accusing the court of bias could be considered contemptuous. 

(b) Disobedience to Court Orders or Breach of Undertaking 

Civil contempt refers to the willful disobedience of court orders, judgments, decrees, or any other judicial process. For instance, failing to comply with an injunction, a decree for payment, or a specific order to act or refrain from acting could constitute civil contempt. Criminal contempt is the more severe form, where conduct or action obstructs the due course of justice or undermines the authority of the judiciary. 

(c) Interference with the Course of Justice 

This category includes acts that directly interfere with the judicial process, such as bribing witnesses, threatening parties involved in a case, or making public statements that prejudice the trial. Contempt of court may also arise if an individual attempts to influence or obstruct legal proceedings in any way that hinders the course of justice. 

Key Principles Derived from Case Law 

Several landmark cases have outlined important principles regarding contempt proceedings in Bangladesh. These principles have shaped the judicial approach to contempt, balancing the need to preserve the authority of the court with the protection of constitutional rights. 

• Mainul Hosein vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed (53 DLR 138): This case reiterated that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. The contemner is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The court must be cautious in issuing contempt orders, ensuring that the allegations are not based on inaccurate or exaggerated statements. 

• Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Shah Azizur Rahman (52 DLR 159): The court emphasized that contempt proceedings must be based on clear evidence and the intent behind the conduct. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

• Abdul Jabbar vs. State (44 DLR 21): In cases where there is no mens rea (intent), the court may not hold an individual guilty of contempt. This principle underlines the importance of intent in determining whether an act amounts to contempt. 

• Rafiqul Alam vs. Bangladesh (50 DLR 628): This case emphasized that contempt petitions should not be filed on the basis of inaction or failure to comply with an order if alternative enforcement mechanisms are available. Simply not complying with a court order does not automatically equate to contempt. 

Punishment for Contempt of Court 

In Bangladesh, the punishment for contempt of court is not specified in any statute. As a result, the punishment depends on the discretion of the court, guided by previous case law. The court may impose fines, imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature and severity of the contempt. 

While contempt of court can result in imprisonment, most cases involve fines, especially for less serious acts of contempt. However, the decision to impose punishment is highly subjective, influenced by the facts of the case and the intent of the contemner. 

The court is also empowered to impose punitive measures such as imprisonment for defiant behavior or actions that endanger the integrity of the judicial process. The court, however, has cautioned against the overuse of contempt powers and emphasized that these should be used judiciously. 

The Role of the Media and Contempt of Court in Bangladesh 

In modern democracies, the media serves as an essential pillar, facilitating public awareness and playing a key role in shaping public opinion. In Bangladesh, the media has a powerful influence in influencing social, political, and judicial discourse. However, this influence comes with the significant risk of contempt charges, particularly when media outlets publish content that is perceived to undermine the judiciary's dignity or obstruct judicial proceedings. 

Media's Vulnerability to Contempt Charges 

The press in Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to contempt charges, especially when it reports on judicial matters that may be seen as offensive to the courts. In many cases, journalists may be accused not of misreporting facts, but of undermining the public’s trust in the judiciary. This highlights a crucial issue within the scope of contempt law: the potential of a journalist’s report to affect public perception of the courts, regardless of whether the facts are correct. 

While journalists may be careful in presenting the facts of cases, their reporting often goes beyond the mere presentation of facts to include analysis and opinion, especially on judicial conduct. This can lead to situations where the line between legitimate criticism and contempt of court becomes blurred, resulting in journalists being charged with criminal contempt for actions that are, in essence, part of their journalistic duties. 

The Lack of Truth as a Defense in Contempt Cases 

One of the most controversial aspects of contempt law in Bangladesh is that the truth of the statement does not necessarily serve as a valid defense. In other areas of law, truth is considered an absolute defense to defamation claims, but in contempt proceedings, the focus is not on the veracity of the statement but rather on its potential impact on the authority and public confidence in the judiciary. A journalist may be held guilty of contempt if their report, regardless of its factual accuracy, has the potential to undermine public trust in the judicial system or to disrespect the judiciary's authority. 

This has raised concerns regarding freedom of the press in Bangladesh, where journalists are often caught between the necessity of reporting on judicial matters and the fear of facing legal consequences for reporting that may be interpreted as undermining the dignity of the courts. 

The Press’s Role in Shaping Public Opinion on the Judiciary 

In Bangladesh, media outlets are frequently engaged in discussions regarding court decisions, judicial behavior, and the conduct of individual judges. These discussions, even when intended to inform the public or stimulate debate, can sometimes cross into areas that are viewed as undermining the dignity of the judiciary. 

For example, when journalists criticize the decisions made by judges or report on controversial cases, the media can be accused of scandalizing the court if the report is deemed to diminish public respect for the judiciary. The law places an additional burden on journalists, urging them to perform their duties with a heightened sense of responsibility, ensuring that their criticisms are constructive rather than sensational or harmful to the authority of the court. 

Conclusion 

Contempt of court plays an essential role in maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary in Bangladesh. While judicial discretion and case law have guided the application of contempt powers, there is a pressing need for legal reform. The absence of a dedicated Contempt of Court Act creates ambiguity, and the reliance on case law can result in inconsistent rulings. To ensure fairness and transparency, it would be beneficial for Bangladesh to enact a comprehensive Contempt of Court Act that clearly defines contempt, outlines procedures for contempt cases, and provides clear guidelines on the punishments for various offenses. Such reforms would ensure that contempt powers are applied consistently, fairly, and in line with international standards for judicial independence and freedom of speech. In conclusion, while Bangladesh's judiciary has managed to uphold its authority through judicial discretion, the time is ripe for a more systematic and codified approach to contempt of court, one that strikes a balance between safeguarding the judiciary and protecting individual rights.