In the full text of a verdict, the High Court has heavily expressed its annoyance against the Attorney General Office for their representation on behalf of the persons who face the contempt of court ruling.
The court said, “It is also noteworthy that when a contempt proceeding is drawn against any particular person, Attorney General Office is supposed to act as prosecutor.
Since contempt of court is a personal liability of the contemptnor, neither the Attorney General, Additional Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General or any Assistant Attorney General should appear on behalf of any contemnor.”
The HC bench comprising Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain passed the observation in a verdict that annulled the contempt of court law enacted giving some protection to the journalists and the government officials.
After hearing a writ petition the High Court delivered the short verdict on September 26 in 2013, while the full text of it was released on Wednesday (November 16 in 2022).
Two Supreme Court lawyers filed the writ petition challenging the legality of eight provisions [4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13(2)] of the ‘Contempt of Court Act-2013’, which exempted journalists and government officials from contempt charges.
The Jatiya Sangsad enacted the law on February 19 in 2013, and a gazette was also issued on February 23 that year.
Declaring the Contempt of Court Act-2013 void and unconstitutional, the HC said its provisions are discriminatory since those give protection to a section of people. Every citizen is equal in the eye of law as per the Constitution, the court said.
“It is time and again decided in different courts of different jurisdiction that Supreme Court is a court of record and shall have all the power of contempt including the power subject to law-making and punishment of contempt itself.
However, the impugned sections of the instant statute looks like to have been made to curtail this power of this court, as provided in the Article 108 of the Constitution. The overall crux of the Act is to protect the Government servants and journalists disregarding the other citizens of the country, which is discriminatory,” said the verdict.
