Contempt of Court
Contempt of court may be classified into three categories, namely (1) disobe- dience of court orders and breach of un- dertakings given to the court, (2) scan- dalisation of the court and (3) interfe- rence with the administration of jus- tice The Appellate Division held that the first category is termed as civil contempt, whereas the other two categories are con- tempt of a criminal nature. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, The Ap- pellate Division is not concerned with the first category since there is no allegation of any breach or non-compliance by the con- temnors-respondents of any order issued by this Court. The question to be considered is whether the respondents have made com- ments/remarks which scandalise the Court or which interfere with the administration of justice. It is also pertinent to pose the question whether such utterances in public, by persons holding high constitutional posts has demonstrated their utter disregard for the rule of law and decisions of the Su- preme Court and hence violation of the provisions of the Constitution contrary to the oath of their office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The State Vs. Advocate Md. Qamrul Islam, M.P. Minister, Ministry of Food and another (Criminal) 8 ALR (AD) 106-130
Contempt of the Court Comments intentionally with the object of maligning and undermining the office of the Chief Justice and the highest Court of the coun- try. Statements are so derogatory and con- temptuous unconditional apology refused the contemnors found guilty.
The Appellate Division is unable to ac- cept the unconditional apology offered by the contemnors taking into consideration that the contemnors are sitting Cabinet Mi- nisters holding constitutional posts. They are oath bound to preserve and protect the Constitution. The impugned statements/ comments/ remarks made by them appar- ently show that they made those comments intentionally with the object of maligning and undermining the office of the Chief Justice and the highest Court of the coun- try. Their statements are so derogatory and contemptuous that if they are let off any person will be emboldened to make similar statements/remarks/comments interfering with the administration of justice and also undermining the authority of Supreme Court in the estimation of the people in general, The prayer for unconditional apol- ogy is, therefore, refused. The contemnors are found guilty of gross contempt of this Court. The State -Vs. Advocate Md. Qamrul Islam, M.P. Minister, Ministry of Food and another (Criminal) 8 ALR (AD) 106-130
Contempt proceedings drop–
Contempt proceedings drop– The contempt-petitioners have received the entire price of the above mentioned properties, that is, a sum of Taka 99,21,76,074.27 (ninety nine crore twenty one lacs seventy six thousand seventy four taka and twenty seven paisa only) vide cross cheque No. 1213204 dated 1-7-2019 as consideration of the aforesaid property from Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust forever and that the contempt petitioners being satisfied about their claim made a declaration in this Court we do not find any earthly reason to keep this contempt proceeding pending. It is to be mentioned here that admittedly Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust has been possessing the scheduled property for more than 40 years. Writ-petitioners Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Limited and another shall not be entitled to claim any right, title, interest and possession in the scheduled property since they have accepted the market price of the scheduled property as consideration and left their claim forever. The contempt petition is finally disposed of, consequently, this proceedings is dropped. .....Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. =VS= Major General AK Mohammad Ali Shikder, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 281]
Effect of apology by contemnors- The Appellate Division held that whether or not apology of contemnors is accepted and if so, what sanction if any is to be im- posed depends on the facts and circums- tances of each case. Apologies are mere empty words if the contemnors in fact jus- tify their action in some way. Appellate Division has noted that during the course of deliberations on 20th March the Court observed that usually if apology is offered then it is normally in one or two sentences. When the contemnors say sorry and then proceed to justify why they said what they had said, then the apology is a mere device to get a lesser punishment or no punish- ment at all. This Court has a duty to protect itself and the judicial institution from any person who will utter damaging remarks and then proffer empty apologies when taken to task for their admitted acts of de- struction and desecration of the sanctity of the judiciary, which is otherwise held in high esteem by the general public. The State -Vs. Advocate Md., Qamrul Islam, M.P. Minister, Ministry of Food and another (Criminal) 8 ALR (AD) 106-130
The Appellate Division held that utterances of the contemnors has clearly shown their wish to remove the Chief Justice from the Bench hearing the appeal in question. Their further utterance that they must have their expected judgement shows their utter indifference to the authority of the Supreme Court to act independently. It also shows their utter disregard for the rule of law. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court authority to deliver judgements in accord- ance with law, but the respondents wished to dictate what decision should be annou- nced by the Supreme Court for it to be acceptable to them. The said utterances show an intention to divert the course of justice in a particular wav, come what may. which is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution which requires that every citi- zen should eniov the protection of the law and be treated in accordance with law. The utterances of the respondents therefore de- mand that the Supreme Court should de- cide the appeal other than in accordance with law which is violative of the Consti- tution. The respondents thus neglected their sworn duty to protect the rule of law en- shrined in the Constitution. The State Vs. Advocate Md. Qamrul Islam, M.P. Minister, Ministry of Food and another (Criminal) 8 ALR (AD) 106-130
Contempt of Court-The editor of a newspaper is responsible for deciding what materials will be published. To that extent whatever is ultimately printed is according to the decision of the editor. The editor cannot escape the responsibility of scrutinizing materials published in any newspaper. If he allows publication of contemptuous reports, then he is equally liable. Ekramul Haque Balbul vs Md Faiz, 67 DLR (AD) 208
Contempt of Court-When allega- tions/imputations are brought against a Judge, a distinction must be drawn between what is personal, i.e. purely against the Judge, without any intention thereby to bring disrepute upon the Court, and what is aimed at maligning the Court and the system of delivery of justice. If it is purely against the Judge personally, it would be a matter of libel action by the Judge. Ekramul Haque Balbul vs Md Faiz, 67 DLR (AD) 208
Contempt of Court-If an impression is created in the minds of the public that the Judges in the highest Court act on extraneous considerations, the confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice is bound to be undermined and no greater mischief than that can be imagined. State vs Swadesh Roy, "Daily Janakantha", 68 DLR (AD) 162
Proceedings for Contempt of Court should not be lightly started. M.O. Ghani Vs. A.N.M.Mahmud (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 463.
Conviction of a person for Contempt of Court in the absence of such contemner not justified except in exceptional cases. Editor, Daily Nawa-I-Waqt Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 295.
Executive arm of the Government will not be allowed to attack and deface the honour, dignity, majesty and independence of the judicial organ of the State. Abdul Karim Sarker Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
Contempt of court-Apology when offered Some tests laid down for acceptance of apology by the contemner.
"In considering whether the apology should be accepted or not, a few facts should be taken into consideration". These facts, as mentioned by the Court, are:
(i) As to whether the appellant appreciated that his act was within the mischief of contempt;
(ii) Whether he regretted it;
(iii) Whether his regret was sincere;
(iv) Whether it was accompanied with expression of the resolution never to repeat again, and
(v) Whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court". Abdul Karim Sarker Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
Contempt of Court
1. Apology
Expression of regret: An expression of regret after making every effort to justify the action complained of cannot be treated as an unqualified apology or even as an apology simpliciter. "An attempt", it has often been said "to justify the conduct and at the same time to express regret for the act is a contradiction of the terms". Where it is contended, as in the present cases that the publication could not possibly amount to contempt, the subsequent apology can hardly be regarded as genuine. Advocate General Vs. Shabir Ahmed (1963) 15 DLR(SC) 356.
Advocate imputing partiality to a judge of the Supreme Court in the disposal of cases before the Court with half-hearted apology for the wrong done is guilty of contempt of Court.
In the matter of contempt of Court by Mr. Karamat Ullah Khan, (1971) 23 DLR (SC) 34.
Contempt of Court--When apology offered is unacceptable. Abdul Karim Sarkar Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
Acceptance of an apology tendered not at the carliest opportunity showing sincere regret, would amount to opening and not closing the door of scandalizing the Courts. Abdul Karim Sarkar Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
Contempt of court-Apology when offered Some tests laid down for acceptance of apology by the contemner.
"In considering whether the apology should be accepted or not, a few facts should be taken into
consideration'. These facts, as mentioned by the Court, are:-
(i) As to whether the appellant appreciated that his act was within the mischief of contempt;
(ii) Whether he regretted it;
(ii) Whether his regret was sincere;
(iv) Whether it was accompanied with expression of the resolution never to repeat again. and
(v) Whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court. Abdul Karim Sarkar Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
2. Disobedience of orders or processes of Court.
Failure to obey the process of Court does not amount to contempt unless something more as contumacious disregard of the Court's order is established-Circumspection to be observed when taking contempt proceedings.
In the absence of any proof of a contumacious disregard of an order of the Court no committal for contempt is possible.
Respect due to a Court itself is owed also to its processes but mere failure to obey any process of the Court, when other methods of enforcing the process are available, does not amount to a contempt of Court.
Unless the person served with the process has done something more to exhibit a disrespect for the process of the Court, as for example, used insolent or indecent expressions or violent or profane language on being served with such a process or assaulted or ill treated the process server.
It is of the utmost importance that a committal for contempt should not be made unless the disobedience shown is of such a serious nature as to indicate that the alleged contemner is deliberately out to flout the order of the Court and to treat with some degree of contumaciousness. Bahawal Vs. State.
(1962) 14 DLR (SC) 273
(1962) PLD (SC) 476.
Facts which constituted contempt in the present case--Court's order is found to have been disregarded. Mahbur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sidker (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Executive arm of the Government will not be allowed to attack and deface the honour,dignity, majesty and independence of the judicial organ of the State. Adbul Karim Sarkar Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
Contempt of Court-Maintenance of the Court, dignified bearing in the face of unbecoming conduct, etc. Abdul Karim Sarkar Vs. The State (1986) 38 DLR (AD) 188.
Violation of the order is found to be deliberate and intentional.
But in the facts and circumstances in the present case violation of the order is found to be deliberate and intentional. It is not a single act or omission for which the respondent has been charged. There is a series of acts of the respondent from 21.7.82 to 31.12.82. i.e. for about six months, which are involved in the allegation of contempt. It is not the case of the respondent that he misunderstood our order or there is ambiguity therein, particularly about certificated bills as a precondition for preparation of cheques to withdraw money. Rather, he himself stated in his reply to the petitioner's suggestion for a discussion that the Court's order was very clear and unambiguous which could be followed without any difficulty and that it is the petitioner who tried to complicate the matter. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Majibur Rahman (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
3. Interference with administration of justice- Pending Proceedings.
Conduct that tends to bring the administration of law by a Court into disrespect amounts to a contempt.
The categories of contempt are too manifold that it is not possible to attempt an exhaustive classification of what may or may not constitute a contempt, but generally speaking any conduct that tends to bring the administration of law by a Court into disrespect or to contumaciously disregard its processes or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witness during the litigation amounts to a contempt. Md. Samirullah Khan Vs. State, (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 150.
Test applicable to ascertain--is whether a publication has interfered with the course of justice.
Held: The real test in cases of this nature is whether the publication complained of tended or was calculated to interfere with the course of justice in any substantial or real manner, either by prejudicing a fair trial or by prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard. In determining this effect neither the intention of the printers or authors nor the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the publication complained of, is of any consequence, for, what a Court of law is concerned with is that it should not permit anyone to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow. Attorney-General of Pakistan Vs. Abdul Hamid Sheik, (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 96.
Anticipating the judgment of a Court that had been reserved is a serious matter even though the ultimate order of Court passed by the Judge in a particular case is to the same effect as was anticipated inasmuch as the ultimate order could have been otherwise, as the Judges were at liberty to change their opinion till the delivery of the judgment regardless of the observations made by them during the hearing. Abdus Salam Vs. State, (1958) 10 DLR (SC) 176 (1958) PLD (SC) 528.
(Per Kaikaus, J.)---Superior Court should be absolutely protected from attack. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
Contempt of Court for breach of Court's prohibitory order--Knowledge of such order --Wilful disregard to the order will outweigh proof of actual service of the order.
For justifying a committal for breach of a prohibitory order it is not necessary to actually prove service of the order upon the party. But the contention cannot be accepted that any kind of report of such an order will be sufficient to fix the party with notice of such an order. In a proceeding of a criminal or quasicriminal nature it is a fundamental rule that before a person can be saddled with the penal consequences of a breach of an order he must at least be shown to have had some definite and authentic information of the order which he is alleged to have violated. What amount of proof will be sufficient to fix a person with such knowledge will of course depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but this can safely be stated that the mere verbal assertion of a rival party can hardly be regarded as sufficient for this purpose. When there is clear proof of a wilful disregard of of the order proof of actual service of the order is not necessary to assert the claim of knowledge of the person saddled with the penal consequences. Syed Ahmad Shah Vs. The State. (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 103.
The confidence in Courts of justice which the public possess must in no way be tarnished. diminished or be wiped out by contumacious behaviour of any person. The essence of contempt is an action or inaction amounting to an interference with or to obstruct due administration of justice. Moazzem Hossain Vs. State (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 290.
4. Jurisdiction.
Power of committal given to superior Court--a necessary power given. The power of committal for contempt is given to such superior Courts in order that they may swiftly and summarily perform one of their most important duties which is to protect themselves against wilful disregard or disobedience of their authority. It is necessary to arm the Courts with powers to defend themselves against every attack upon the position which they occupy in the administration of justice. Confidence in their capacity as such can be allowed to be affected only at the risk of dissolution of the entire system of Courts. Edward Snelson Vs. Judges H. C. of Lah. (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
What constitutes contempt of Court--dictum of Wills, J.-It is now settled that all publications which are calculated to or have the tendency either to excite prejudice against parties or their litigations while it is pending or to interfere with the due course of justice, will constitute contempt. The reason for this as stated by Wills. J. in the King Vs. Parke (1903-2KB 432, "is because their tendency and sometimes their object is to deprive the Court of the power of doing that which is the end for which it exists, namely, to administer justice duly, impartially, and with reference solely to the facts judicially before him." Advocate-General Vs. Sabir Ahmed (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 355.
5. Lawyer
Advocate on charge of contempt. Although proceedings in chambers of Judges are not invested with the full formality of those that take place in Courts, yet the circumstance in which and the attitude with which an interruption was made by the Advocate in the case even in chamber proceedings are factors which may deprive the interruption of all innocence in the light of contempt of the Court's authority and dignity.
An offence in this respect shall necessarily invite the grave penalty of judicial conviction and a fine supported by imprisonment in default but in the present case having regard to the fact that the Advocate concerned was young the conviction and sentence 'was set aside and in their place an admonition substituted to the effect that in all his future dealing with Court, he should never forget that however important in substances or principle a matter may be, which he is placing before the Court, he should never forget that his own dignity as a lawyer obliges him to place it before the Court in the manner of a submission, couched in the traditional language of courtesy that is due to the Court. Rashid Murtaza Qureshi Vs. State (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 608.
Duty of the members of the Bar towards the Courts.
Advocate acting as Official Receiver writing to Government to influence the High Court in regard to his functions as Receiver is in serious contempt. S. A. Maquith Chowdhury Vs. State (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 105 (1958) PLD (SC) 425.
In case of genuine apprehension, it is the primary function of the litigant and the lawyer, to openly state it. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
Duty of the lawyers engaged to conduct the case in weighing carefully any statement made to the Court which may scandalise the Court. Μ. Η. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
6.Subjudice pending proceedings.
Pending proceedings before (Supreme) Court--Expression of opinion over a law point in respect of such proceedings and the plea of ignorance.
It is not possible to accept contention that mere expression of an opinion on question of law which is subjudice cannot amount to a contempt of Court. It is not possible to accept the contention that in law knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings is necessary. All that is necessary to show is that a proceeding was actually pending at the time or was imminent. Advocate General Vs. Shabir Ahmed (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 335.
Pending also includes and extends upto the period of limitation for filing appeal, etc. There is abundant authority for saying that a case is pending upto the time that the limitation for filing an appeal from the said cause has not expired. Advocate General Vs. Shabir Ahmed (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 355.
7. Misrepresentation of judgment.
Anticipating the judgment of a Court that had been reserved is a serious matter even though the ultimate order of Court passed by the Judge in a particular case is to the same effect as was anticipated inasmuch as the ultimate order could have been otherwise, as the Judges were at liberty to change their opinions till the delivery of the judgement regardless of the observations made by them during the hearing (26 E.R. 683 followed) Abdus Salam Vs. State (1958) 10 DLR (SC) 176=(1958) PLD(SC) 528.
A litigant has every right in circumstances which shakes his confidence about getting justice at the hand of a superior Court to raise his objection. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
8. Newspaper comment.
Newspaper comments, when have the effect of interference with the course of justice.
If an article read reasonably and as a whole was. calculated or had the tendency to prejudice mankind against one or other of the parties involved in a proceedings in a Court of law, will amount to an interference with the course of justice, for, the question in these cases is not as to whether the publication has, in fact interfered or not or as to what was the intention of the author and/or publisher, but whether it has the tendency to produce such prejudicial effect. The principle upon which this type of contempt is punished is to keep the streams of justice unsullied so that parties against whom litigations are pending in Court of law should get fair trial from the Court and not be subjected in advance by a "trial by newspapers". Saadat Khialy Vs. State & ors. (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 81.
Editors' responsibility-It is of no avail to the editor of a newspaper to plead ignorance of the publication for, in law he is responsible for every thing that is printed in his newspaper. Advocate General Vs. S. Ahmed (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 355.
It is a misconception to think that publications of briefs, pleadings or petitions even without comments can, in no circumstances, amount to a contempt. Such publications, if one- sided, may well have the undesirable effect of prejudging the party whose version is not also placed before the public. Saadat Khialy Vs. State (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 81.
In the case of newspapers, the editor, the manager, the printer, the publisher as also the staff reporter, who is the actual author, are legally responsible in the fullest measures for the publication made therein. It was clearly the duty of editors and the publishers to see that whatever is published in their newspaper is a true and authentic report of proceedings in a Court of law. It is incumbent on the editor, publisher and printer of the newspapers to verify the correctness before they publish and print news about any Court proceedings and that they should be very careful before publishing any such things and should guard its security. Saddat Khialy Vs. State (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 81.
Newspapers publishing the contents of an application filed in the Supreme Court (containing sensational matters) even before the application was taken up for hearing are guilty of contempt. Attorney General Vs. A Hamid (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 96.
The effect of the publication complained of in the present case was to cause a grave and serious interference with administration of justice, for the allegations made in the petitions of Shabir Ahmed, J., as published in the newspapers clearly calculated to lead to the inference that the Judges constituting the Special Bench hearing the appeal has not decided the case of Syed Ali Newaz Gardezi with fairness and impartiality. Attorney General Vs. A. Hamid (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 96.
Both parties to a cause in a matter pending in a Court of law, should be heard at the same time and in the presence of each other by an unprejudiced tribunal. This object will be entirely frustrated if newspapers are permitted to print extracts of pleadings in advance, for, it would constitute a serious interference with what is Court's duty, the decision of the pending case. Attorney General Vs. A. Hamid (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 96.
Intention to cause prejudice not a necessary ingredient--If a publication is calculated, that is, is of nature of character as is likely to lead to that effect, that would be contempt. The word 'calculated' has two meanings. One is 'devised with forethought' and the other is 'of a nature of character proper or likely to'. The word 'calculated' used by the Privy Council in the case of Devi Prasad Vs. Emperor in the sentence calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of the law had been used in the latter sense. Abdus Salam Vs. State (1958) 10 DLR (SC) 176 (1958) PLD (SC) 528.
Attempt to justify publication scandalising the judges constitutes worst contempt and the contemner not permitted to offer evidence in justification of his allegation.
Scandalization of the Judges--Such offence has to be met with condign punishment--Mitigating circumstances when the offender without any defence throws himself at the mercy of the Court in contrition of the offence committed.
In the matter of Contempt Proceedings against Arif Nizami, (1971) 23 DLR (SC) 1.
10. Scandalizing Court.
Imputation of unfitness--Publication of libel, itself illegal. In relation to a person's office, it is a libel to impute any unfitness or want of ability to discharge his duties. Thus, it is libellous to impute total ignorance of law to a Barrister. In cases of this kind, no proof of special damage is necessary. "Special damage" meaning in the context, some actual temporal loss. (Per C.J.) Para 7 Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, High Court, Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
Contempt of scandalising Court-- Justification therefore itself amounts to contempt. Equally, the defence of fair comment is not available. For fair comment it is necessary that facts should be truly stated, it is not enough that there should be absence of malice, or that the expression of opinion should be honest. (Per C.J.) (para 48) Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, High Court, Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
To say that the High Courts by exercise of excessive legal ingenuity were deliberately giving wrong decisions in writ matters, that the reprimand of the Supreme Court had no effect on them and that their improper conduct might be disastrous for the country amount to a gross and aggravated contempt of Court. (Per Akbar, J.) Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, High Court, Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
Judge's behaviour in discharge of his duties. A common man always looks upon a Judge as an impartial, unruffled emblem of justice. If a Judge loses his temper, indulges in improper language or becomes excitable, then the impersonal concept of the seat of justice gets a rude shock. (Per Akbar J.) Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, High Court, Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
To impute to the Judges any unfitness, whether on account of incompetence, lack of integrity or otherwise amounts to scandalising a Court. It is necessary as stated by Wilmot, J. "to keep a blaze of glory around them and to deter people from attempting to render them contemptible in the eyes of the public". (Per Kaikaus, J.) Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, High Court, Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
Disparaging words used against the Judges of the High Court in a letter addressed to the Chief Secretary of the Province--amounts to gross contempt of Court. Syed Mohsin Tirmizy Vs. State (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 735.
12. What is contempt and what is not
Intention to cause prejudice not a necessary ingredient. If a publication is "calculated", that is, is of nature or character likely to--that would be contempt. The word "calculated" has two meanings: one is "devised with forethought" and the other "is of a nature or character proper or likely to." The word "calculated" used by the Privy Council in the case of Devi Prasad Vs. Emperor in the sentence "calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of the law."
Intention to cause prejudice is not a necessary ingredient in a case of contempt of Court. Abdus Salam Vs. State (1958) 10 DLR (SC) 176;(1958) PLD (SC) 528.
Conduct that tends to bring administration of justice in disrespect amounts to contempt. This power should be sparingly used and only in serious cases. Md. Samiullah Vs. State, (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 150.
Every non-disclosure of relevant fact or absence of every process does not amount to contempt. Md. Samiullah Vs. State, (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 150.
Failure to obey process of Court does not amount to contempt unless something more as contumacious disregard of court's order is established.
In the absence of any proof of a contumacious disregard of an order of the court no committal for contempt is possible. Mere failure to obey any process of the court, when other methods of enforcing the process are available, does not amount to a contempt of court unless the person served with the process has done something more to exhibit a disrespect for the process of the Court, as for example, used insolent or indecent expressions or violent or profane language on being served with such a process or assaulted or ill treated the process server.
It is the utmost importance that a committal for contempt should not be made unless the disobedience shown is of such a serious nature as to indicate that the alleged contemner is deliberately out to flout the order of the Court and to treat with some degree of contumaciousness. Bhawal Vs. State, (1962) 14 DLR (SC) 273
Fair comment, no offence.
Fair and legitimate comment on judgments of a court would not be actionable, provided the limits of bonafide criticism are not exceeded.
Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men. The power to commit should be sparingly used and any technical or formal contempt should be ignored, as hypersensitiveness on the part of judges would stifle that spirit of free discussion on matters of public interest, which is hall mark of democratic societics. Judges are to share common failings of humanity and a claim of infallibility has never been set up on their behalf. (C.J.) Para (70). Edward Snelson Vs. Judges of H.C. Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
When disparaging remarks are not contempt the only occasion when words which are disparaging to a Judge or to a Court would not constitute contempt would be when they are authorized expressly or impliedly by statute. If a Judge while hearing a case indulges in the use of strong language against a litigant the litigant would be entitled (assuming that no law existed to protect the Judges) to move the civil or the criminal Court and at the same time disciplinary proceedings could be taken against the Judge. In all these cases a reference could be made to the behaviour of the Judge which if made otherwise would constitute contempt. (Kaikaus, J) (Para 136) Edward Snelson Vs. Judges H.C. Lahore, (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
Power of committal--Power of committal given to superior Court is a necessary power given. The power of committal for contempt is given to such superior Courts in order that they may swiftly and summarily perform one of their most important duties which is to protect themselves against wilful disregard or disobedience of their authority. (Para 28). Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, H.C. Lahore (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
It is necessary to arm the Courts with powers to defend themselves against every attack upon the position which they occupy in the administration of justice. Confidence in their capacity as such can be allowed to be affected only at the risk of dissolution of the entire system of Courts. (Para 29) Edward Snelson Vs. Judges, H.C. Lahore (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 535.
(Per Cornelius, C.J.)-Allegation of bias--When bias genuinely apprehended in the Member of a Bench: a bold and full declaration to that effect--No offence. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
Contact between a presiding Judge and a litigant while the latter's case is pending before the Judge resulting in some advantage going to the latter-A serious matter, M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
Seeing several acts in isolation and not taking a full view of all circumstances in their proper context may not convey a complete appreciation of legitimate apprehension in the mind of a litigant. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
Statements made in relation to what had taken place in the Court room by the petitioner and his lawyers were contemptuous--D care and circumspection must be exercised by a litigant when making allegation of bias. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
--Repetition of contempt matter before the Supreme Court in regard to the Judges of the High Court is equally a contempt. M. H. Khondakar Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 124.
Disobedience to the process of Court. Mere failure to obey process of Court when other matters of enforcing the process are open, does not constitute contempt deserving summary punishment. M. O. Ghani Vs. A.N.M. Mahmood (1966)18 DLR(SC) 463.
Proceeding for contempt of court are of a quasi-criminal nature. Benefit of doubt to be given in case of reasonable doubt. Mahbur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sidker (1983) 35 DLR-(AD) 203.
Contempt of court being quasi-criminal in nature the respondent contemner is not like an accused in a criminal case. Mahbur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sidker (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Object of the contempt proceeding is to protect the dignity of the court and not to satisfy the grudges of any private individual. Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Technical disobedience not amounts to contempt of court. Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Notice issued for contempt of court must set out precisely details which constitute contempt. Mahbur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sidker (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Circumstance and events which constitute contempt of court elaborated.
'Contempt of Court' has nowhere been defined in statutes. It has been conveniently described by referring to its ingredients and citing examples 'Contempt' may be constituted by any conduct that brings authority of the Court into disrespect or disregard or undermines its dignity and prestige. Scandalising the court is a worst kind of contempt.
Making imputations touching on the impartiality and integrity of a Judge or making sarcastic remarks about his judicial competence is also a contempt. Conduct or action causing obstruction or interfering with the course of justice is a contempt. To prejudice the general public against a party to an action before it is heard is another form of contempt.
Court's special responsibility in maintaining the self-imposed code of conduct--Behaviour and dealings with reference to those who come in contact, their keeping open and fair mind and impartiality--all emphasised. Moazzem Hossain Vs. State (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 290.
13. When proceeding for contempt should be taken.
The power of commitment for contempt "should be used sparingly and only in serious cases" and that Court should not be either unduly touchy or over-astute in discovering new varieties of contempts, for "its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised". Md. Samiullah Vs. State. (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 150.
When considering whether a particular act amounts to a contempt or not to balance on the one hand the effects it might have on the litigation with, on the other, the wider public interest of extending to litigant public the freedom of conducting their litigation without being constantly under the threat of conviction for contempt and only if on the balance there is benefit to the public interest in the wider sense, this power should be utilised. Md. Samiullah Vs. State. (1963) 15 DLR (SC) 150.
Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings and the charge of contempt must be proved to the hilt. Any summary power to punish should be sparingly used. Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Civil contempt and criminal contempt-What civil contempt means explained.
Badrul Haider Chowdhury, J:- Contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt and civil contempt is defined as wilful disobedience to any judgment, direction, order, writ or other processes of court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to the Court. Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
The distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt.--The distinction between criminal contempt and civil contempt is narrow. It was held in Catmur Vs. Knatchbull the non-performance of an award was a contempt of the court and might be regarded technically an offence. But as it related simply to a civil matter, and was rather in the nature of process to compel the performance of specific act, the matter was in substance not criminal but civil. Mahbubur Raman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Contempt of court does not always take the form of criminal contempt.
There are many contempts of court that are not of a criminal nature; for instance, when a man does not obey an order of the Court made in some civil proceeding to do or abstain from doing something as where an injunction is granted in an action against a defendant, and he does not perform what he is ordered to perform, and then a motion is made to commit him for contempt, that is really only a procedure to get something done in the action, and has nothing of a criminal nature in it. Mahbubur Rahman Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Contempt proceedings may be initiated primarily to vindicate court's authority or it may be as a coercive measure to enforce the litigant's rights or may be for both. Mahbubur Rahrian Sikder Vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Sentence that has been imposed in this case-Not in form.
Proceedings are quasi-criminal In a contempt proceeding which is quasi criminal in nature, the contemner is entitled to benefit of doubt, and since the Court is both prosecutor and judge, rule as to proof of guilty of the contemner must be strictly observed. Moazzem Hossain Vs. State (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 290.
Court's special responsibility in maintaining the self-imposed code of conduct--Behaviour and dealings with reference to those who come in contact, their keeping open and fair mind and impartiality--all emphasied. Moazzem Hossain Vs. State (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 290.
Proceedings for contempt of court are of a quasi-criminal nature--Benefit of doubt to be given in case of reasonable doubt.
It may be borne in mind that though a contempt proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature, the respondent contemner is not like an accused in a criminal case since he may file affidavit or make statements on oath in refutation of the allegation against him.
We find the contemner guilty of committing contempt of court by wilful disobedience of court's order. We, there, convict him and sentence him to pay a fine of "Tk. 1,000/- in default, to simple imprisonment for three months. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Majibur Rahman (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 203.
Contempt of Court-Power to punish. "The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is'given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to judges. The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for Judges as persons but for the function which they exercise", Moazzem Hossain Vs. State (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 290.
Apology-Apology is an act of contrition. When a contemner tenders apology as an act contrition the Court must weigh that apology and if it is found to be a real act of contrition no action need be taken. Shamsur Rahman, DIG of Prisons vs Tahera Nargis Syed 44 DLR (AD) 237.
Contempt matter-A contempt matter is in the nature of a criminal proceeding-The person proceeded against stands in the position of an accused. The allegation of contempt must be proved by the prosecution and in the case of any doubt its benefit shall go to the contemner. If no evidence is led the allegation must fail except in a case of contempt proceeding where the offence is committed in the very presence of the Judge. Fazlur Rahman Molla vs Bangladesh 44 DLR (AD) 194.
News Paper Report-The news report published in the daily 'Bhorer Kagoj, certainly had the effect of scandalizing the justice delivery system. Ekramul Haque Balbul vs Md Faiz, 67 DLR (AD) 208
Contempt of Court
The contemnors have neither made any willful disobedience to the order of the Court nor done anything which is contumacious. No case for contempt is made out.
29 BLC (AD) (2024) 19
