Judgment likely to curb freedom of press

What is more stunning is that through this judgment the court has taken upon itself to vouch for all actions of all judges not only during his or her judgeship but for all activities before he/she became a judge. The judgment cites Lord Morris' judgement of 1899 (just 105 years ago, as if nothing has changed since then) about the need for contempt laws. He is quoted as saying that contempt laws regarding scandalising the court may be necessary in 'small countries consisting principally of coloured population.' It is regrettable that such racist language should find any place in our court's consideration even as a passing reference.

When the world is moving towards greater freedom, when transparency and accountability are becoming the key agents of good governance and when public's right to know is being increasingly recognised as a universal right, we get a judgment from no less a body then our High Court saying that the free and independent press the only channel through which people get to know anything in this country- must take second place to a yet undefined and unspecified notion of contempt of court. And thus issues of national importance regarding the functioning and integrity of one of our key institutions which deserve public scrutiny and debate-will instead be hidden from view. It is sad judgment. It is sadder still that such a judgement comes when the notion of contempt of court is all but disappearing from the legal parlance all over the world. We seem to be getting back into the dark ages of legal views which subordinates the People's Right to Know to judiciary's notion that its must protect itself from public scrutiny.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Recently there has been an orchestrated assault on the free press by some cabinet level policy makers. Several ministers have dwelt on the 'curse' of the free press in Bangladesh; one said that journalists were 'illiterate' and another that we were nothing but liers. Another minister has gone so far as to say that Bangladesh suffers from "too much democracy and too much freedom of press" clearly indicating that if there is half a chance they would stifle it. This judgment may be misused by them to serve their nefarious end.

We want to clearly state that the era of suppressing the press is over both globally and nationally. Any attempt to deprive the people of their right to know will resisted by the people of Bangladesh who have learnt from experience how important a free and independent press is if they are to enjoy a modicum of democracy and freedom in their lives. We pledge to our readers that in spite of all the hurdles we will continue to serve their "right to know" ands work relentlessly to create an informed public opinion which is a fundamental requirement for a functioning democracy.

Our respect for the judiciary remains firm and unconditional. We have relentlessly fought for the independence of judiciary and have all through supported the idea of its complete separation from the executive. We pledge to continue to do so in spite of a judgment that clearly goes against the freedom of press. We do so because we have no doubt in our mind that an independent judiciary is the best guarantee for a free and independent press. The opposite is equally true. We in the independent and free press know it. Does the judiciary? This judgement, sadly, does not indicate it.