The contempt of court law that the High Court declared illegal and unconstitutional yesterday had actually strengthened people’s right to freedom of speech and the freedom of press.
The law did not consider as contemptuous the publishing of impartial and objective reports on judicial proceedings and making objective and unbiased comments on the merits of a case after its final disposal.
Such provisions were incorporated into the law at a time when the media and people in general had been finding it difficult to write even objective reports or make comments on judicial proceedings, fearing action under the previous contempt law.
Now, with the annulment of the law, that protection is gone.
The landmark law lived a very short life; it was passed on February 19.
In contrast, the contempt of court law enacted by the British rulers to gag criticism had been in force for around a century since 1926, even after the departure of the colonial power from India in 1947.
In Bangladesh, that law was repealed only this year and a new law was enacted with some press-friendly provisions in it.
Identical press-friendly provisions exist in the contempt of court law in India, the largest democratic country in the world with a vibrant judiciary.
Passed in 1971, the Indian law says fair and accurate reporting of judicial proceedings and fair criticism of judicial functions will not be considered as contempt of court.
For the sake of strengthening democracy, the Indian parliament made another law long ago, introducing provisions for providing print and electronic media with immunity from prosecution for airing or publishing reports on House proceedings.
And a few years ago, India’s parliament amended the constitution to ensure constitutional protection for the media.
Almost a similar provision exists in the 1981 contempt of court act in the UK, the birthplace of the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy.
About publishing reports on court proceedings, Article 4 (1) of the UK law says a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.
However, the HC in its defence of declaring the law illegal said the law had curtailed the court’s power in dealing with contempt cases. The law had also given some protection to government officials from contempt charges.
But the HC did not declare illegal only the provisions that protected government officials; it rather declared illegal other provisions related to the freedom of speech and the press.
The court, however, said it did not want to limit the freedom of press, but added that freedom should not be unfettered.
But then again, the annulled law did not provide unfettered freedom to do anything. Under the law, the press was free as long as the reports were impartial and objective.
Article 39 of the constitution guarantees people’s right to freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of press subject to reasonable restriction imposed by law in the interest of the security of the country and public order.
In the view of the eminent jurist Shahdeen Malik, healthy criticism is always helpful for any institution. But a throttling of different views always leads to a rise inefficiency and unaccountability.
Source: The Daily Star
