& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Asif Kept Standing

Dr Kamal taken aback by court

Staff Correspondent
The High Court cannot keep a respondent to a writ petition standing before it because such a person is not a contemner, eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain told an HC bench yesterday.
Kamal made the observation before the bench of Justice AHM Shamsuddin
Choudhury Manik and Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim that had kept Dhaka University professor Asif Nazrul standing during a writ hearing on April 15.
Prof Asif faces charges of making "provocative comments" on who would come to power next. “I have not seen in my 52 years of practice that a court keeps the respondents of a writ petition standing before it,” said Kamal, chief counsel of Asif, while placing arguments before the bench hearing a rule on his client.
Justice Manik told Kamal Hossain that there had been allegations against Asif.
“If you say that, then you have disqualified yourself from hearing this matter, because you have already made up your mind," responded Kamal, a barris-
ter.
Justice Manik said the bench would hear the rule with an open mind, saying the bench had already requested some eminent lawyers to place their opinions as amici curiae (friends of court) on limits of freedom of expression.
But Dr Kamal said the defence would approach the chief justice for transferring the case against Asif Nazrul to another bench if the current bench further keeps his client standing.
The bench fixed May 24 for hearing the rule and asked
Asif Nazrul to appear before it on that day.
Asif yesterday went to the court, but he did not enter the courtroom during the hearing.
On March 15, the HC issued the rule on the government and Asif following a writ petition by Nawsher Ali Mollah, a Supreme Court lawyer.
The court in its rule asked them to explain why the government should not be directed to file a sedition case against Asif for making a "provocative statement” about the next government.
The petitioner claimed that Asif had commented at a talk show on Banglavision on March 12 that if the prime minister and the opposition leader were asked who would next come to power, they would perhaps say that a third power would.
During a hearing on the matter on April 15, Rokanuddin Mahmud, another counsel for Asif, told the HC that the quotation made by Nawsher Ali in the petition was not an accurate reproduction of what Asif Nazrul had said at the talk show.