Contempt of court

Introduction
Contempt of court is an offense against the authority and dignity of a court of law. It can
be committed by any person, including judges, lawyers, litigants, and members of the
public. Contempt of court can be either civil or criminal. Civil contempt is a failure to
comply with a court order, while criminal contempt is an act that is intended to obstruct
or interfere with the administration of justice.

In Bangladesh, contempt of court is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926.

This Act defines contempt of court as any act that is calculated to scandalize or criticize
a court or a judge, or to interfere with the administration of justice. The Act also provides
for the punishment of contempt of court, which can include imprisonment, fines, or both.

Contempt of Court in Administrative Law

Contempt of court can be particularly problematic in the context of administrative law.
This is because administrative tribunals often exercise quasi-judicial powers, meaning
that they have the power to make decisions that have the same legal effect as decisions
made by courts. As a result, it is important to maintain the authority and dignity of
administrative tribunals in order to ensure that they can function effectively.

There are a number of ways in which contempt of court can be committed in the context
of administrative law. For example, a person may commit contempt of court by:

 Refusing to comply with a summons or order of an administrative tribunal

 Abusing or threatening an administrative tribunal member or staff member
 Disrupting the proceedings of an administrative tribunal hearing
 Making false or misleading statements to an administrative tribunal.

The Consequences of Contempt of Court

The consequences of contempt of court can be severe. In Bangladesh, a person who is
found guilty of contempt of court can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to Tk.
5,000, or both. In addition, a person who is found guilty of contempt of court may be
barred from participating in future proceedings before the court or tribunal that found
them guilty.

Case Studies
There have been a number of high-profile cases of contempt of court in Bangladesh in
recent years. In one case, a lawyer was found guilty of contempt of court for making
false and misleading statements to a judge. In another case, a journalist was found
guilty of contempt of court for publishing an article that was critical of a judge.

1
Conclusion

Contempt of court is a serious offense that can have a significant impact on the
administration of justice. In Bangladesh, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 provides for
the punishment of contempt of court, which can include imprisonment, fines, or both. It
is important to be aware of the law of contempt of court in order to avoid committing this
offense.

The ''unconstitutional'' contempt of court act 2013

The Contempt of Courts Act, 2013 was a law passed by the Bangladesh Parliament that
aimed to amend the existing Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. However, the 2013 Act was
declared unconstitutional by the High Court of Bangladesh in 2013.
Key Provisions of the 2013 Act

The 2013 Act introduced several changes to the existing law, including:

 Providing protection to journalists and government officials from prosecution

for contempt of court.
 Limiting the powers of the courts to punish contempt of court.
 Requiring the Attorney General to consent to any prosecution for contempt of
court.

Proportionality and unreasonableness

In Bangladesh, the principles of proportionality and unreasonableness play a crucial role
in ensuring that administrative and regulatory decisions are fair, just, and in accordance
with the law. These principles serve as a safeguard against arbitrary and excessive
actions by government agencies and regulators.

Proportionality
The principle of proportionality requires that administrative and regulatory actions
should be proportionate to the objectives they seek to achieve. This means that the
means used to achieve these objectives should not be more onerous or restrictive than
necessary.

Unreasonableness
The principle of unreasonableness requires that administrative and regulatory decisions
must be reasonable in all the circumstances. This means that the decision must be
based on sound evidence, must not be illogical or perverse, and must not be so unfair
as to be unjust.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

2
The principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness is a legal doctrine used to review
administrative and regulatory decisions in Bangladesh. It is named after the case of
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, in which the
English Court of Appeal held that a decision by a local authority to refuse a cinema a
license to show films on Sundays was "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority
could have made it."

The Wednesbury unreasonableness test is a relatively low threshold test. It means that
courts will only intervene in administrative and regulatory decisions if they are so
unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them. This is in contrast to
a more stringent test, such as the proportionality test, which requires courts to consider
whether the decision is proportionate to the objectives it seeks to achieve.

The Wednesbury unreasonableness test has been applied in a number of cases in

Bangladesh. For example, in the case of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory
Commission v Grameenphone Ltd, the High Court of Bangladesh held that the
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission's decision to impose a fine on
Grameenphone Ltd for violating certain regulations was unreasonable. The Court found
that the Commission had not given Grameenphone Ltd a fair hearing, and that the fine
was disproportionate to the offence committed.

Connection between Unreasonableness and Proportionality

While unreasonableness and proportionality are distinct principles, they are
interconnected in several ways:

1. Unreasonableness as a manifestation of disproportionality: A decision that is found

to be unreasonable is often also found to be disproportionate, meaning that the
means used to achieve the desired outcome were excessive or unnecessary.
2. Proportionality as a refinement of unreasonableness: The principle of proportionality
provides a more nuanced framework for assessing the reasonableness of
administrative and regulatory decisions. It goes beyond simply asking whether a
decision is irrational or unfair, and instead considers the specific context and the
balance between competing interests.
3. Complementary roles in judicial review: Both unreasonableness and proportionality
are used by courts when reviewing administrative and regulatory decisions.
Unreasonableness provides a broad threshold for intervention, while proportionality
provides a more structured framework for assessing the balance of interests.
In essence, unreasonableness is the broader concept that encompasses any decision-
making flaw that renders a decision unjust or unfair, while proportionality is a more
focused concept that specifically assesses the balance between means and objectives.
Both principles play complementary roles in ensuring that administrative and regulatory
decisions in Bangladesh are fair, just, and in accordance with the law.

3
 Doctrine of reasonable classification
The doctrine of reasonable classification is a legal principle that requires that
government actions should be based on a rational connection between the classification
and the purpose of the action. This principle is particularly important in administrative
and regulatory law, as it ensures that government agencies do not create arbitrary or
discriminatory distinctions between different groups of people.

Secretary , ministry of agriculture and others vs mosaddeq hossain

and others case

Facts: In 1995, a writ petition was filed by Masdar Hossain, a district judge, on behalf of
441 other civil court judges. The petition put forward the following points:-

1) Including the judicial service under the executive branch's orders was ultra vires.
2) Chapter II of Part VI of the constitution ensured lower courts were separate from the
executive.
3) Judges of lower courts could not be subject to an Administrative Tribunal of the
executive.
The Dhaka High Court ruled in favor of the petition with a 12-point directive in 1997. The
government appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

Judgment:

 In 1999, the Supreme Court reversed parts of the High Court ruling, but upheld
the 12 point directive.
 It ruled that the constitution provided a framework for judicial independence.
However, it allowed the government to control the salaries, pensions, leave, and
other allowances of judicial officers.
 The Supreme Court also issued a further 12 point directive. This directive called
for the formation of an independent judicial commission to select members of the
judiciary, deal with matters of judicial salaries and manage discipline.

Significance: The verdict led to the formation of the Bangladesh Judicial Service
Commission. It was implemented by Chief Advisor Fakhruddin Ahmed during the
caretaker administration in 2007.

Test Of Reasonable Classification

the appellate division held that to be permissible and reasonable, classification must
satisfy the two following condition-
1. The first condition is that the classification must have a rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved by the statute or regulation in question.

4
 2. The second condition is that the classification must be based on an
intelligible differentia.

Public interest litigation

Public interest litigation (PIL) is a significant tool for upholding fundamental rights and
promoting social justice in Bangladesh. It has played a crucial role in addressing a wide
range of issues, including environmental protection, consumer rights, and the rights of
marginalized groups.
Emergence and Development of PIL in Bangladesh

The concept of PIL emerged in Bangladesh in the early 1990s, following the country's
transition to a democratic system. Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh provides
the legal basis for PIL, empowering the Supreme Court to issue directives in the public
interest.
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh has played a pioneering role in expanding the scope
of PIL and making it accessible to a wider range of individuals and groups. In a
landmark case, the court held that any person can file a PIL, even if they are not directly
affected by the issue at hand. This has allowed for the representation of marginalized
groups who may not have the resources or knowledge to pursue legal action on their
own.

Role of PIL in Administrative and Regulatory Law

PIL has been particularly effective in challenging administrative and regulatory actions
that are deemed to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of fundamental rights. The
courts have used PIL to review and overturn government decisions, enforce
environmental regulations, and protect the rights of consumers and workers.

Notable Examples of PIL in Bangladesh

PIL has been used to address a wide range of issues in Bangladesh, including:

 Environmental protection: PIL has been used to challenge pollution, deforestation,

and other environmental hazards.
 Consumer rights: PIL has been used to protect consumers from unfair trade practices,
defective products, and misleading advertising.
 Rights of marginalized groups: PIL has been used to promote the rights of women,
children, minorities, and other marginalized groups.
 Labor rights: PIL has been used to protect the rights of workers, including their right to
fair wages, safe working conditions, and freedom of association.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite its progress, PIL still faces challenges in Bangladesh. These include:

5
  Lack of awareness of PIL among the public
 Limited resources for PIL litigation
 Complex legal procedures
To further strengthen PIL in Bangladesh, there is a need for:

 Public awareness campaigns to educate the public about PIL

 Increased funding for PIL organizations
 Simplification of legal procedures
PIL has also been used to address a number of other important issues in Bangladesh,
including:

 Environmental protection
 Consumer rights
 The rights of marginalized groups
 Labor rights
 Human rights

The doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a legal principle that holds that individuals have
a right to expect that government agencies and other public bodies will act fairly and
reasonably in their decision-making processes. This doctrine is based on the idea that
individuals should not be deprived of their rights or benefits without due process of law.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is particularly important in administrative law,

which is the body of law that governs the relationship between government agencies
and individuals. This is because administrative agencies often make decisions that have
a significant impact on people's lives, such as whether to grant or deny licenses,
permits, or benefits.

Here are some of the key takeaways from this case:

o The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to government decisions that affect

the rights of individuals.
o The government has a duty to act fairly and reasonably in its decision-making
processes.
o Individuals have a right to expect that the government will not take actions that
would frustrate their legitimate expectations.
o The government must provide individuals with an opportunity to be heard before
making decisions that affect their rights.

6
 o The government must provide individuals with adequate compensation if it
acquires their property.

Legitimate Expectation
A legitimate expectation arises when an individual has a reasonable and justifiable
belief that a particular course of action will be taken by a government agency or public
body. This expectation can be based on various factors, including:

 Explicit promises or representations made by the agency or body

 Consistent past practices of the agency or body
 The existence of a clear legal right or expectation

Significance of Legitimate Expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation plays a pivotal role in protecting individuals from
arbitrary or unreasonable actions by government agencies. It upholds the principles of
good governance and administrative justice by ensuring that individuals are not
deprived of their rights or benefits without due process.

Ombudsman

Introduce
Article 77 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh provides for the
establishment of the office of Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is an independent
authority who is empowered to investigate any action taken by a Ministry, a public
officer or a statutory public authority. The Ombudsman is required to prepare an annual
report concerning the discharge of his functions, and such report shall be laid before
Parliament.

The Ombudsman Act, 1982 was enacted to give effect to Article 77 of the Constitution.
The Act provides for the appointment of the Ombudsman, his powers and functions, and
the procedure for making complaints to him.

The Ombudsman is an important institution for upholding the rule of law and ensuring
good governance in Bangladesh. The Ombudsman has a mandate to investigate
complaints of maladministration, corruption, and abuse of power. The Ombudsman has
the power to investigate any action taken by a Ministry, a public officer or a statutory
public authority. The Ombudsman can also investigate complaints of maladministration
by private organizations that provide public services.

The Ombudsman can make recommendations to the government to improve the way
that public services are delivered. The Ombudsman can also make recommendations to
Parliament for the enactment of new laws or the amendment of existing laws.

7
Interpretation
Article 77 establishes the Ombudsman as an independent authority with the power to
investigate maladministration, corruption, and abuse of power in the public sector. The
Ombudsman's role is to protect the rights of citizens and ensure that public services are
delivered in a fair and efficient manner.

The Ombudsman's powers are broad and include the authority to investigate any action
taken by a Ministry, a public officer, or a statutory public authority. This means that the
Ombudsman has the power to investigate any aspect of government administration,
including the actions of ministers, civil servants, and government agencies.

The Ombudsman's annual report is an important tool for promoting transparency and
accountability in government. The report provides an overview of the Ombudsman's
work and identifies areas where improvements are needed. The report is also a
valuable resource for Parliament in its oversight role of the government.

Definition of ombudsman
An Ombudsman is an independent official who investigates complaints of
maladministration, corruption, and abuse of power by government agencies and
officials. The Ombudsman has the power to investigate any action taken by a Ministry, a
public officer, or a statutory public authority. The Ombudsman can also investigate
complaints of maladministration by private organizations that provide public services.

Ombudsman in Bangladesh
The Ombudsman in Bangladesh is an independent authority empowered to investigate
complaints of maladministration, corruption, and abuse of power by government
agencies and officials. Established under Article 77 of the Constitution of the People's
Republic of Bangladesh, the Ombudsman plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of
law and ensuring good governance.

Section 6 also specifies that the Ombudsman shall not make any adverse finding or
criticism against a person without providing them with an opportunity to be heard and
make representations in their defense. This ensures that the Ombudsman's
investigations are conducted fairly and impartially.

Section 3 of the ombudsman act 1980

Section 3 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, deals with the establishment of the office of
Ombudsman and its powers. It consists of two subsections:

Section 3(1): There shall be an Ombudsman who shall be appointed by the

President on the recommendation of Parliament.

8
Section 3(2): Parliament shall recommend for appointment as Ombudsman a
person of known legal or administrative ability and conspicuous integrity.

Section 9 of the ombudsman Act 1980 (reporting procedure)

Section 9 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, deals with the reporting procedure for the
Ombudsman's investigations. It consists of three subsections:

Section 9(1): After investigation of any complaint under this Act, the Ombudsman
shall prepare a report in writing and send it to the person who made the
complaint.

Section 9(2): If in any report made by virtue of this section the Ombudsman finds
that injustice has been caused to the complainant or to any other person in
consequence of maladministration, he shall include in the report a
recommendation that such injustice should be remedied.

Section 9(3): The Ombudsman shall also send a copy of any report made by
virtue of this section to the head of the Ministry or department concerned and to
any other person who, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, ought to receive it.

Section 13 of the ombudsman Act 1980 (punishment for

obstruction)
Section 13: Power of Ombudsman to punish any person for obstruction.

Any person who, without lawful excuse, obstructs the Ombudsman in the
performance of his functions, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment
which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two
thousand Taka, or with both.

The purpose of this section is to protect the Ombudsman from interference and to
ensure that he is able to carry out his duties effectively. Obstruction can include any act
that prevents the Ombudsman from investigating a complaint, obtaining evidence, or
interviewing witnesses.

The term "lawful excuse" means that there must be a valid reason for obstructing the
Ombudsman. For example, a person would have a lawful excuse if they were refusing
to answer a question that was not relevant to the investigation.

The Ombudsman's power to punish for obstruction is an important safeguard for his
independence. It ensures that he is able to investigate complaints without fear of
interference or intimidation.

Section 15 of the ombudsman Act 1980 (exemption !!! )

9
Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, empowers the Government of Bangladesh to
exempt any public officer or class of public officers from the operation of all or any of the
provisions of the Act. This means that the Government can, by notification in the official
Gazette, declare that a particular public officer or group of public officers will not be
subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.

Section 16 of the ombudsman Act 1980 (immunity)

Section 16(1): No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the
Ombudsman or any member of his staff in respect of anything which is in good
faith done or intended to be done under this Act.

Section 16(2): No proceedings, decision or report of the Ombudsman shall be

liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any Court.

General comments
The Ombudsman in Bangladesh plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and
ensuring good governance. Its independence, broad jurisdiction, and extensive powers
make it a powerful tool for addressing maladministration, corruption, and abuse of
power in the public sector.

10