The Contempt of Court Bill 2011 was placed in the parliament seeking enactment of a comprehensive law to make room for contemners to tender unqualified or unconditional apologies to any court at any stage of the trial or appeal.
The speaker sent the bill to the parliamentary standing committee on the law ministry for further scrutiny asking the committee to submit the report in three weeks.
If passed by the parliament, the bill will repeal the Contempt of Court Act 1926, which has become obsolete.
Placing the bill, the law minister, Shafique Ahmed, told the house that the 1926
act was made by the British colonial rulers with three sections only, which even does not given the definition of contempt.
He said that during the immediate-past military-controlled interim regime, the president had promulgated the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2008 on May 25, 2008 and the High Court on July 24, 2008 declared the ordinance void.
The bill has been prepared considering the High Court verdict, prevailing circumstances and the laws of other countries, especially India, he said adding that the verdict had not barred the parliament from enacting a new law on contempt.
The bill differentiates between civil and criminal contempt of court.
It defines civil contempt of court as any wilful violation of any verdict, decree, directive, order, writ or warrant issued by a court or any undertaking given to the court.
The bill defines criminal contempt of court as any act, or expression by verbal or written words or visible signs or display, which may undermine or intend to undermine the authority of any court, or may make or intend to carry out malicious campaigns about the authority of any court, or may hamper or intend to hamper any judicial process, or may obstruct or intend to obstruct the process of justice.
The bill detailed a number of activities that would not constitute contempt.
According to the bill, people will not commit contempt by making publication or expression by verbal or written words or visible signs or display regarding any proceedings of a court if they have no reason to believe that the matter was pending with the court.
Any publication or expression by verbal or written words or visible signs or display regarding any proceedings of a court, which is not pending with the court, will not constitute contempt.
Distribution of such publications also will not constitute contempt if there is no reason for the distributor to believe that the matter is pending with the court.
Publication of any objective and unbiased news on any proceedings of any court or any part thereof or publication of any fair and unbiased comment on the merit of case after its disposal will not constitute contempt, the bill says.
Publication of any unbiased and objective news on any proceedings conducted in the chamber of a judge or 'in camera' will also not constitute contempt unless the court imposes a bar on such publication in public interest.
Such publications may, however, constitute contempt if the hearing is conducted in chamber or 'in camera' considering public order or security of the state.
It says that making any statement before a higher court or the Supreme Court about a judge of a subordinate court in good faith will not amount to contempt.
The bill also says that if it is not possible for a public servant to implement or go by any judgement, order or direction because of any existing laws and rules or any other practical reasons, no contempt petition can be filed against the public servant.
According to the bill, the court may ask any alleged contemner to appear before it in person for the first instance and then allow the person to face the case through a lawyer.
The court, however, will have the power to order the contemners to appear in court again if it thinks that the contemners should be given personal hearing for the ends of justice.
It says that the public servants can face any contempt charge through the state attorneys and at the cost of the state. A public servant will, however, need to refund the costs if the person is convicted.
It also says that the court may absolve a public servant of the contempt charge if the person retires or the service of the person is dismissed before the disposal of the contempt proceedings.
According to the bill, a person can be punished with imprisonment for six months, or with a fine of Tk 2,000, or with both for contempt of court.
It will also make room for contemners to tender unqualified or unconditional apologies to any court at any stage of the trial.
It also proposes a provision for allowing contemners to tender unqualified or unconditional apologies during the hearing in the appeal against the sentences against them.
According to the bill, no proceedings for the contempt of court can to be drawn after the expiry of six months of the commission of the offence and the trial must be completed in six months from the date of the drawing of the proceedings.
Source: New Age
No comments:
Post a Comment