Contempt of court and free press
The verdict's full repercussion should be thoroughly analysed
When a six-member appellate bench of the highest court headed by the chief justice delivers a verdict in a contempt of court case it is a serious matter. More so, when conviction has been handed to individuals involved with a newspaper, one being the editor.
A verdict coming from such an exalted level of judiciary is almost a law unto itself. Although certain individuals have been punished, penalised and criticised, it's the implications that the verdict holds for the institution of the press that have to be analysed. The cardinal principle of free press rests on two co-related fundamentals: first, it is a medium through which people's inalienable rights to freedom of expression and freedom of information find fulfilment; and second, such rights would be best guaranteed from exposing abuse of authority and power by any institution and its opaque exploitation by the power that be. At the same time, independence and integrity of the judiciary are also an important guarantor of the people's inalienable rights grouped as fundamental rights together with a stout defence of fair-play and justice in a society.
In a constitutional democracy and modern society that have evolved through a process of trial and error there shouldn't be any room for conflict between the sanctity and dignity of an independent judiciary and unfettered but responsible press. In fact, one cannot exist and function effectively without the other; they are, for all practical purposes, mutually reinforcing institutions with so much to share and draw upon each other. If judiciary is the fountainhead of justice, free press is the vehicle of freedom of expression of all citizens and as such an essential pillar of democracy.
A fine balance need to be struck between the sanctity of the judiciary exalted in its own right, and a flourishing free press upholding the people's right to free expression and information. True, the judiciary is more organised with its statutes and constitutional covenants but independent press has its moorings in journalistic ethics which if flouted will not only draw scrutiny from authorised body but also public criticism.
The big challenge, therefore, is to realise and internalise the fact that not only the two must coexist in an ambience of mutual respect but also draw on each other to flourish and serve the ends of public good and good governance.
In the light of what we have stated above, the question does arise as to whether punishing editors and journalists under contempt law protects and enhances the dignity of the judiciary. We feel that the verdict pronounced on Thursday does not serve that purpose. What we need now is a wise leadership of the Supreme judiciary towards strengthening all institutions that bring more freedom to individuals and accountability of all institutions, including the judiciary.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Related News
An alarming report on children’s exposure to climate risks
19 June 2026, 19:07 PM
Editorial
Why is safe water inaccessible for millions despite rising spending?
19 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
BB must confront bad loans’ true scale
18 June 2026, 18:38 PM
Editorial
Dolphin deaths must be investigated
18 June 2026, 08:00 AM
Editorial
Weak policing fuelling rise in crimes
17 June 2026, 18:18 PM
Editorial
Comments