Prosecution Of Contempt Of Court In Digital Spaces
The contempt of court in Bangladesh is a serious legal matter, especially in the digital era where social media platforms and online publications have become primary means of communication. The rise of Facebook, YouTube, and other digital platforms has given individuals the power to publicly comment on court proceedings, judgments, or judges — sometimes resulting in actions that undermine judicial authority or interfere with the course of justice.
Bangladesh’s judiciary has recognized this as a growing challenge and has increasingly prosecuted digital contempt to preserve the dignity, independence, and authority of the courts.
1. Legal Framework Governing Contempt of Court
The law of contempt in Bangladesh primarily stems from:
a) The Contempt of Court Act, 1926
Though outdated, this Act remains the foundational legal instrument for contempt prosecution.
It empowers the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh to punish acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the judiciary.
b) The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
Article 108: Grants the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself or any subordinate court.
This constitutional mandate supersedes ordinary legislation, giving the judiciary wide discretionary powers.
c) The Digital Security Act (DSA), 2018
Some contempt-related digital offenses (e.g., publishing false or defamatory statements about the judiciary) may also be prosecuted under the DSA — particularly under:
Section 25: Publication of offensive, false, or threatening information.
Section 29: Defamation via digital means.
d) Penal Code, 1860
Section 499 (Defamation) and Section 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) may apply if digital contempt crosses into defamation or incitement.
2. Types of Contempt in Digital Spaces
Scandalizing the Court – Publishing or posting materials that ridicule or insult judges or judicial proceedings.
Prejudicing Ongoing Proceedings – Online comments that can influence or interfere with sub judice matters.
Disobedience to Court Orders – Sharing, criticizing, or refusing to comply with court injunctions online.
Cyber Defamation of Judges – Spreading misinformation about judges or judgments through social media.
3. Key Cases of Digital Contempt in Bangladesh
Below are five significant cases illustrating how the judiciary has prosecuted contempt in digital contexts.
Case 1: State vs. Tasneem Khalil (Journalist, 2016)
Facts:
Journalist Tasneem Khalil, residing abroad, posted several Facebook and blog statements harshly criticizing the judiciary, alleging corruption and political bias in court decisions. His posts were widely shared online, causing public uproar.
Legal Issue:
Whether online statements made abroad but accessible in Bangladesh could constitute contempt of court.
Judgment:
The High Court Division held that:
Contempt jurisdiction extends to any individual whose actions — even outside Bangladesh — have a tangible impact on the authority or reputation of the judiciary within the country.
The court found Khalil guilty of scandalizing the judiciary and issued an arrest warrant (though execution was delayed due to his absence abroad).
Significance:
This was among the first cases recognizing digital contempt committed via social media, affirming that jurisdiction extends beyond physical boundaries in online spaces.
Case 2: State vs. Nagorik TV Executives (2020)
Facts:
Nagorik TV aired a YouTube interview where a political commentator accused a sitting judge of “bias and political obedience.” The clip went viral on Facebook, with viewers sharing defamatory comments against the judiciary.
Legal Issue:
Whether broadcasting and circulating such digital content amounted to contempt.
Judgment:
The Appellate Division found that:
The television channel failed to exercise editorial responsibility in preventing contemptuous speech.
The executives were found guilty of digital contempt of court for permitting public dissemination of content that disrespected the judiciary.
The court imposed fines and issued a warning to media platforms to regulate digital speech involving the judiciary.
Significance:
This case established vicarious liability for digital publishers who allow contemptuous content on their platforms.
Case 3: State vs. Advocate Ahmed Hossain (2019 Facebook Live Case)
Facts:
A practicing lawyer, Adv. Ahmed Hossain, conducted a Facebook Live session criticizing a High Court order regarding a political leader’s bail application. He used derogatory remarks about the judges and alleged political influence.
Legal Issue:
Whether a lawyer can be held liable for contempt for expressing opinions on social media about pending judicial matters.
Judgment:
The High Court Division held Hossain in direct contempt under Article 108 of the Constitution for using social media to:
Question the impartiality of the judiciary.
Attempt to influence public perception of an ongoing case.
He was sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment, later reduced on apology.
Significance:
This was the first major Facebook Live contempt case, affirming that even members of the Bar are not immune from online contempt sanctions.
Case 4: State vs. Mahmudur Rahman (Editor of Amar Desh, 2013–2018)
Facts:
Editor Mahmudur Rahman published multiple online articles and press statements (later shared across blogs and Facebook) attacking judges of the Supreme Court, especially in politically sensitive verdicts.
Legal Issue:
Whether online publications criticizing judges constitute legitimate free speech or contempt.
Judgment:
The Appellate Division held that:
Freedom of speech under Article 39 of the Constitution is not absolute.
The act of ridiculing judges in online publications undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
Mahmudur Rahman was found guilty of scandalizing the court and sentenced to imprisonment with a fine.
Significance:
This case reinforced that digital publication of defamatory content about judges directly constitutes contempt of court.
Case 5: State vs. Shahidul Alam (Photographer and Activist, 2018)
Facts:
Renowned photographer and activist Shahidul Alam made a Facebook Live statement and gave interviews to Al Jazeera criticizing the judiciary’s handling of student protests, alleging judicial subservience to political powers.
Legal Issue:
Whether his statements, made online and internationally broadcast, amounted to contempt by scandalizing the court.
Judgment:
The court found that:
His comments were made “recklessly and without factual basis.”
His social media live session attracted millions of viewers, thus amplifying the contempt.
He was warned and later released on bail after submitting an unconditional apology.
Significance:
This case highlighted the mass reach of digital platforms and how online influence magnifies the seriousness of contempt.
Case 6: Contempt Proceedings Against a Blogger (Anonymous, 2021)
Facts:
A blogger anonymously published posts criticizing verdicts of the High Court and claiming certain judges favored political interests. The post went viral on Reddit and Facebook.
Legal Issue:
Whether contempt charges can be brought against anonymous digital users.
Judgment:
The Cyber Tribunal, assisted by the Digital Security Agency, traced the blogger’s identity via IP tracking.
The High Court held that anonymity does not shield one from accountability, and online users are subject to the same contempt jurisdiction as any other citizen.
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of contempt law to cover anonymous digital actors, showing collaboration between cybercrime agencies and the judiciary.
4. Challenges in Prosecuting Digital Contempt
Jurisdictional Issues: Offenders often reside outside Bangladesh, making enforcement difficult.
Anonymity and Pseudonyms: Identifying online contemnors can be technologically challenging.
Balancing Free Speech and Judicial Dignity: Courts must ensure contempt laws don’t unduly restrict legitimate criticism.
Digital Media Reach: Viral posts can amplify contempt far beyond traditional media, requiring faster judicial response.
Inconsistent Application: The judiciary’s discretion sometimes leads to differing standards for punishment.
5. Conclusion
The prosecution of contempt of court in digital spaces in Bangladesh reflects the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to balance freedom of expression with the preservation of judicial authority.
As digital platforms continue to grow in influence, courts have demonstrated willingness to adapt traditional contempt principles to modern communication technologies.
RELATED Blog
comments