Counsels for the two dailies facing contempt charges for running reports on an additional High Court judge’s alleged certificate tampering yesterday said that the reports were not baseless and that the dailies informed people of the matter on the basis of official documents.

The High Court asked them whether the intention (of the reports) could be an ingredient of contempt of court The court further asked whether truth can be a defence against contempt, meaning that truth or falsity of the report was

not the issue.

"The respondents’ actions have not been motivated by any malice or any intention to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard," Dr Kamal Hossain, counsel for the Daily Prothom Alo editor, publisher and reporter, said in his submission during hearing of the case.

The dailies, instead, acted throughout in utmost good faith and with the intention of upholding the integrity and independence of the courts. As representatives of a free

FROM PAGE 1

and independent press, it publishes the news received by it on matters which are newsworthy and in public interest, he said.

Additional Judge of the High Court Justice Faisal Mahmud Faizee’s father Mohammed Faiz filed the contempt petition on November 8.

The respondents - Publisher of the Prothom Alo Mahfuz Anam, Editor Matiur Rahman, reporters Ekramul Haque Bulbul and Masud Milad and Publisher of Bhorer Kagoj Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Editor Abed Khan and Reporter Shamaresh Baidya — werepresent during hearing.

Tne High Court division bench of Justice MA Matin and Justice AFM Abdur Rahman heard the submission.

The two dailies carried the reports after an inquiry committee of Chittagong University (CU) unearthed the certificate tampering

Azmalul Hossain, counsel for Faiz, told court that the reports fall under the purview of contempt of court, not of the freedom of press.

On tampering he admitted that there was overwriting in the tabulation sheet of one of the subjects but claimed that it was not Faizee’s fault Maybe, the man who did that forgot to put his signature there, he said.

The university's probe report said there were marks of rubbing in the tabulation sheet but did not say who was responsible for it the counsel argued. '’Even Faizee’s certificate has not been cancelled."

"It does not matter whether the reports are true or false. It will be contempt of court even if it is true and the guilt will be more if it is found false," he contended.

The way the report was published counts on to be a contempt of court, it would not be so if it was presented in anotherway, he said.

In his day-long submission, Dr Kamal said, "Publication of the report was in exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of expression, involving not only the right but the duty to freely impart information to the public on matters which are of legitimate public interest and concern.

The information contained is in relation to the eligibility and qualifications of a particular individual for appointment to this court and its publication is not intended to detract from the dignity of the court but rather to make it possible to give due consideration to relevant information which, had it been disclosed, as it ought to have been before all concerned, would have materially affected the process of appointment,’’hesaid.

Where such facts become available and known to the press, it is manifestly evident that these should be published in public interest in order to uphold the integrity and dignity of the judiciary as a whole, Dr Kamal observed.

Any individual who may have a grievance with the publication of a report relating to his personal conduct or reputation may proceed in libel. A report which does not address the administration of justice or of the actions of a judge in his judicial capacity, but only the conduct of an individual in his personal capacity, cannot be the subject matter of contempt proceedings.

The respondents have committed no contempt of court, neither have they published any baseless or motivated report The report is founded in fact and based upon the public documents and records of Chittagong University.

They deny that there has been any contempt of court or that they have published any report distorting the truth, or maligning debasing or tarnishing the prestige, dignity and authority of the court Dr Kamal said.

They have carried out their responsibilities to report an issue of vital public interest, indeed of profound concern to the judiciary itself, and to all those concerned with the administration of justice and with maintaining the integrity and high standards.

The lawyer argued that the petitioner’s invocation of the contempt jurisdiction is manifestly an abuse of process for a collateral purpose, insofar as it concerns acts committed by an individual in his private capacity long before his appointment as a judge and does not in any way relate to tne actions of any judge performing his or her judicial functions.

"The law does not recognize any such concept as ’collective’ contempt of court," Kamal said in his submission.

The report is not about an additional judge of High Court regarding his performance of judicial functions, rather about the activities and findings of a three-member committee fonned to inquire into alleged irregularities in examinations for inter alia the LLB degree, hesaid.

It refers to findings concerning certain persons who were private individuals and students of CU and one of whom subsequently was appointed an additional judge.

The terms Prothom Alo used were not its own invention, rather the terms the CU authorities, inquiry committee and the Syndicate used. The report merely disclosed what were in the documents," Dr Kamal added.

"If the government inquired well before Faizee’s appointment, it might have had the information that journalists revealed, and the appointment might not have taken place, ” ne said.

Tt will not be contempt of court as the report published a past incident of a newly-appointed judge.

There is no comment in it about the court, judicial function, the Supreme Court, or other judges. It is written on only one judge out there is even not a word there about his sewn-day judicial function as judge," he said.

Tt is clear that the contents (of the reports) are true as the judee has not turned up in his office since their publication? Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud, counsel for Bhorer Kagoj editor and reporter told journalists later.

"The Judge should have filed a defamation suit if he felt offended by the reports as those have no ingredients that may be found directed against the house of justice," he said.

"There is no definition of contempt of court in either the constitution or In the law But there is law on freedom of press," hesaid.

"Newspapers have duties to publish all news that areof public concern," Rokan observed.

Hearing on the matter resumes this morning.

Advocate Mahbub-e Alam was present in court for Saber Hossain Chowdhury, while Barrister Sara Hossain and Barrister Tanjib-ul Alam assisted Dr KamaL