1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICITON) Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder
And
Mr. Justice Kazi Md. Ejarul Haque Akondo
Suo Motu Rule No. 04 of 2021
IN THE MATTER OF: The State
..........Petitioner. -Versus-
The Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, 1, Segun Bagicha, Dhaka and others
.......Respondents. Mr. A.K.M. Amin Uddin, D.A.G with
Ms. Anna Khanom Koli, A.A.G
…..For the Respondents. Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, Senior Advocate,
.....For the Anti-Corruption Commission. Mr. Mohammad Shishir Manir, Advocate
.....For the Respondent No. 02. Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam Khan Liton, Advocate,
.….For the Respondent No.03.
Heard on: The 21st day of June, 2022 Judgment on: The 21st day of June, 2022
Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder, J:
On 08.03.2021, Mr. A.K.M. Amin Uddin, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the State, has drawn our attention to the news report
under caption “ ‘ ”: ! published in the Daily
Inqilab dated the 2nd March 2021 and taken us through the contents of the news report which reads as under:-
‘
|
’
!
1
‘ ’
• ( )
।
, , - , , ।
• ।
•
• ড
• ,
।
,
•
• ‘
’ ।
• ( - . . . . . . )
- . ।
ড - ।
. ,
•
• ।
, (
- ) h¢qi¨Ña
• ( -
) । ড ( - ) ।
( -
- - )।
•
• .
• ,
- -
• . ।
. ।
। - , , /-, - , , /-, , , /-, , /-,
, /-, , . /-
• ।
. h¢qi¨Ña
।
( : , : / / )
• ( /
: / / ) ।
( - , : / / ) ।
. ‘
’- । । ( - , : / / ) ।
•
• ।
ড- / , - , - / - ‘ ’
• ‘ , ,
’ ।
• ‘ ,
’ ।¢L¿¹¹¤
• ।
। ড- , - /
• ,
, , , ।
( - ) । ।
•
( - )।
( - / , hÔL- , - )। ( - )
•
• ( - / )। ।
• ।
( - - , ড / ) ।
• ।
।
( - )
• ।
।
• ( - ) ।
• .
( - ) ।
, , :
, ।
,
• । ।
,
• , -
।
, ( : - ) .
ড
• ,
‘¡a Buh¢qi¨Ña
- ( )
, , ( ) ( ), ( ) ।
. ‘¡a Buh¢qi¨Ña
( ) ( ) ।
¢L¿º
• .
• ‘ ’
• ‘ ’ । , ‘ ’ ‘ ’ :
•
• ‘ ’
• ।
• ¢L¿º
-
• ‘ ’ Hl
•
- ।
ড । ¢L¿º ‘ ’ ।
‘ ’ ।
।
, ‘ . ( ; ), . -
, , ( ড : )
, ( ),
, - / , - , ড- , - , , , ,
, . , , ,
( )
• - , ড, ,
।
, .
, . ,
‘ ড ’
।
।’
‘ ’ ‘ -
/ , ড- / , , , ’ ।
- ড- , - , / ।
,
।
, ‘ ’ ‘
ড ’ ।
• ।
, ।
• ।
( :- ) ,
• ‘ ড ’
,
- , । ‘ ’
•
• । ।
It may be noted that in view of the above facts and circumstances, this court, by order No. 01 dated 08.03.2021, directed the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission to explain its position in this regard and to submit a report as to whether the allegation of discharge/release of Engineer Ashraful Alam, Director General of Housing and Research Institute and his wife from the inquiry proceeding in exchange of a huge amount of money, are true or not, before this court on or before 15.04.2021 by way of affidavit.
Further, at the prayer of ACC, the Respondent No.2, Mr. Syed Ahmed, the News Reporter of the Daily Inqilab was also directed to submit the papers and documents before this court by way of affidavit on or before 15.04.2021 on which he made the reporting on the discharge/release of Engineer Ashraful Alam, Director General of Housing and Research Institute and his wife from the inquiry proceeding in exchange of a huge amount of money in the news report published in the Daily Inqilab on 02.03.2021.
This court, by another order dated 14.02.2022, also directed the Anti-Corruption Commission to submit the inquiry report before this court on or before 27.02.2022 as per order No.01 dated 08.03.2021 of this court. Side by side, at the prayer of ACC, the Respondent No.02, the News Reporter of the Daily Inqilab was also directed to submit his sources of information before this court on or before 27.02.2022 as per order No.01 dated 08.03.2021 of this court.
On 02.02.2022, the Respondent No.3, Engineer Ashraful Alam, was added as Respondent No.3 to this Suo Muto Rule following an application for addition of party filed by him.
This court, by an order dated 13.04.2022, directed the Anti-Corruption Commission to transmit and produce the records of the inquiry proceeding in respect of Respondent No.03, Engineer Ashraful Alam and his
wife before this court on or before 27.04.2022.
Following the order of this court, the Respondent No.02, the News Reporter of the Daily Inqilab submitted affidavit-in-reply dated 10.02.2022 and also submitted supplementary-affidavit dated 12.04.2022 before this Court.
Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Commission, has filed affidavit-in-compliance dated 06.03.2022 before this court.
It may be noted that after holding inquiry into the allegations brought against the Respondent No.3 and his wife, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 22.02.2021 recommending release of Respondent No.3 and his wife from the inquiry proceeding but after issuance of our order, the Anti-Corruption Commission formed a 3-member inquiry team on 15.02.2022 and started a fresh inquiry into the allegations brought against the Respondent No.03 and his wife.
At the very outset, Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Commission, submits that the Respondent No.02 by making publication of the news report in the newspaper has offended, defamed and tarnished the image of the Anti-Corruption Commission and also challenged the efficacy of the Anti-Corruption Commission which is no doubt a mala fide act to malign the Anti-Corruption Commission which is punishable and he may be punished in accordance of law.
He further submits that this sort of publication of news report made by the Respondent No.02 is not only yellow journalism but also a mafia journalism; publication of this sort of news report maligning the image of the Anti-Corruption Commission can’t be spared at all; so, it should be brought under the strict supervision of this court and he should be punished in accordance with law.
From the news report, Mr. Khan reads out that , , - , ,
।
।
।
•
• ড
• ,
• and then submits that this sort
of news report is totally false, fabricated, manufactured and has no basis at all; this kind of news report is imaginary and has been published with a view to scandalizing and undermining the Anti-Corruption Commission; so, this matter should not be taken lightly rather it should be taken and dealt with very strictly and that the reporter and the concerned newspaper may be punished with necessary punishments.
He lastly submits that if this sort of news report is allowed to publish in the newspaper, in that case, the tendency to publish this sort of news report in the newspaper will increase day by day with a view to defaming and undermining the sensitive institutions and organizations such as the Anti-Corruption Commission.
Mr. Khan, in support of his contentions, has referred to a decision taken in the case of Advocate Md. Riaz Uddin Khan vs. Mahmudur Rahman reported in 63DLR(AD)(2011)29 and taken us through paragraph Nos.68, 69, 80, 83 and 89 of the decision.
In paragraph No.68 of the above decision, it has been categorically observed that “Any expression of opinion would not be immune from liability for exceeding the limits under the law of contempt of court or the constitutional limitations either under the law of defamation or contempt of court or the other constitutional limitations under Article 39(2). If a citizen, therefore, in the garb of exercising right of free expression under Article 39(2)(a) and (b), tries to scandalise the court or undermines the dignity of the court or makes abusive words, then the court is under duty to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 108. No person has any right to flout the mandate of law or the authority of the court for alleged establishment of law under the cloak of freedom of thought and conscience or freedom of speech and expression or the freedom of the press guaranteed by Article 39. Such freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the law.”
In agreement with the submissions of the Anti- Corruption Commission, Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam Khan Liton, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 03, submits that the news report in question published in the newspaper has affected the right, name and fame of the Respondent No. 03 and his wife since the matter is under inquiry and it has also influenced and affected the inquiry proceeding and for this reasons, this matter may be disposed of with
appropriate observation and direction so that the inquiry proceeding is not influenced in any way and in any manner.
He next submits that the news report itself is fake, fabricated and manufactured one and this sort of news report should not be published in the newspaper while an inquiry proceeding is going on against the Respondent No. 03 and his wife; so, the Respondent No. 02 should not have published this sort of news report in the newspaper and that being the reason, this matter may be disposed of with appropriate direction so that the inquiry proceeding is concluded following the appropriate provisions of laws and rules.
He lastly submits that the news report has certainly tarnished the image of the Respondent No.03 along with his wife and the Anti-Corruption Commission as well and on this landscape, this matter may be disposed of with necessary observation and direction.
On the other hand, Mr. Mohammad Shishir Manir, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.02, categorically submits that the Respondent No.02 being a senior journalist having 30 years of experience has produced so many news reports basing on which the authority concerned has come to know about the situation happening around; he was the President of Law Reporters Forum and he is a member of National Press Club, Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU) and Reporters against Corruption (RAC); he worked with mainstream national daily newspapers like the Daily Jugantor, the Daily Orthonite Pratidin and the Daily Bangladesher Khobor; he worked as a television anchor of different talk-shows; he is a rhymer and has published 3 (three) rhyme books; he published many sensational and investigative news reports; he has been covering news reports of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Judiciary, Law Ministry and Law Commission. During his 20 years of working in court beats, he covered many sensational cases including Bangabandhu murder case; he has a remarkable track record of serving this nation and he produced this report with the intention to safeguard potential corruption; in fact, he is professionally duty bound to bring to the notice of the authority any irregularities/corruption happened or likely to happen in the society; he performed his professional commitment with sincerity and integrity and he should be praised for that; because of his report, the Anti-Corruption Commission formed a 3-member inquiry committee in order to conduct further inquiry into the offences alleged to have been committed by the added Respondent No.3 and his wife; the Anti-Corruption Commission should praise him rather than blaming him; for his investigative journalism, this Hon’ble Court issued order on 08.03.2021 and on 15.02.2022, the Respondent No. 01 passed an order to conduct further inquiry into the self- same matter forming 3-member inquiry team, which indicates that the Respondent No.01 accepted his investigative report; now, it is surprising why
He next submits that the purpose of Anti- Corruption Commission is to prevent corruption and other corrupt practices in the country and for conducting inquiry and investigation of corruption and other specific offences and for the matters incidental thereto; the Respondent No.02, in fact, provided clue for conducting inquiry into the offences alleged to have been committed by the added Respondent No.3 and his wife; hence, the purpose of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Respondent No.2 is on the same page; they are concomitant side of the same coin; they can work hand to hand; there is no earthly reason that the Respondent No.01 will blame the experienced
journalist who can provide reliable and trustworthy information; the Respondent No.1 should come up with praise worthy words for Respondent No.2; perhaps that situation would best serve this nation against corruption drive.
He then submits that the source of information is a property of a journalist; he deals with information and maintains sources carefully and reasonably; information is the only raw material based on which a journalist provides assistance to the process of rule of law and democracy; therefore, across the globe, the urgency of maintaining secrecy of the source of information is recognized; nowhere of the world, the journalists can be forced to disclose the source of information.
He candidly submits that in our jurisdiction, the Press Council Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974) has specially provided protection to the journalists. Section 13 (2) of the said Act specially provides as under:
“Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to compel any newspaper, news agency, editor or journalists to disclose the source of any news or information published by that newspaper or received or reported by that news agency, editor or journalist.”
He additionally submits that since the law of the land has provided mandate to protect the source of information, so long this provision exits, there is no way to force them to disclose the source of information wherefrom journalists received appropriate information.
He vigorously submits that on 22.06.2011, our Parliament enacted another legislation titled ‘the Public-Interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011 (Act No.07 of 2011) which has encouraged the whistleblowers to ventilate information against corruption. Section 5 of the said Act, has specifically provided protection and inspiration to the persons who would blow the whistle against potential corruption.
He strongly submits that upon a cursory view of the Act, it is crystal clear that the law requires to reward/encourage those who as insiders would take initiative to share information around him for the purpose of disclosing corruption scam and irregularities.
He strenuously submits that in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5396 (widely known as Pegasus Case), the Supreme Court of India felt necessity to protect the source of information of journalists. The relevant portion of said Judgment as laid down in paragraph No.40 is quoted below:
“An important and necessary corollary of such a right is to ensure the protection of sources of information. Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom of the press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest.”
He earnestly submits that admittedly, democracy is one of the basic structures of our Constitution; freedom of press is considered as the fourth pillar of democracy; investigative journalism is the integral part of freedom of press guaranteed under Article 39 of the Constitution; we all should work together to uphold the freedom of press, failing which the spirit of democracy will be at stake; Article 39 of the Constitution has guaranteed the freedom of thought and conscience; more specifically, Article 39(2)(b) has clearly mentioned the term ‘freedom of the press’; investigative journalism is the necessary corollary of such freedom.
He frankly submits that the Respondent No. 02 works as watchdog and in appropriate situation, they ventilate information not to undermine any person but to serve the cause of justice.
He with reference to Section 12 of The Press Council Act, 1974, submits that if the news report published by the Respondent No.2 offends, defames and tarnishes the image of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Respondent No. 3, they may file a complaint before the Press Council and if the Press Council has reason to believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the standard of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or a working journalist has committed any professional misconduct or a breach of the code of journalistic ethics, the Council may, after giving the newspaper or news agency, the editor or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as may be provided by regulations made under this Act, and if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist, as the case may be.
Summing up all the submissions, Mr. Mohammad Shishir Manir, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 02, lastly submits that for the publication of the news report in the newspaper, he should not be blamed rather he should be appraised for his works because he is working to unearth the hidden corruptions which are available in the society; so, under the circumstances, the Respondent No. 02 should be free and absolved of the alleged charge and/or allegation that he committed wrong and tarnished the image of the Anti-Corruption Commission by making publication of news report in the newspaper.
Mr. A.K.M Amin Uddin, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the respondents, with reference to sections 12 and 13 of the Press Council Act, 1974, submits that if the Respondent No.2, by publishing the news report, offends the Respondent Nos.1 and 3, there is a provision of filing complaint before the Press Council and necessary action may be
taken against him by the Press Council itself and as such, this matter may be disposed of in accordance with law giving necessary observation and direction.
He lastly submits that since the inquiry is going on against the Respondent No. 03 and his wife, so, this matter may be disposed of in accordance with law with a direction upon the Respondent No.1 to conclude the inquiry as early as possible.
We have gone through the news report published in the newspaper and the contents thereof. We have also considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates and the learned Deputy Attorney-General for the respective parties.
On going through the materials on records, it is evident that following allegations of acquisition of properties by the Respondent No.3 and his wife, which are claimed to be disproportionate to their known sources of income, on 08.01.2020, the Anti-Corruption
Commission issued notices upon them for submitting wealth-statement before the Anti-Corruption Commission. Pursuant to the notices, the Respondent No. 3 and his wife submitted wealth-statement before the Anti-Corruption Commission. On 11.03.2020, the Anti-Corruption Commission appointed an inquiry officer to assess/enquire into the statements of wealth submitted by the Respondent No. 3 and his wife. Having completed the inquiry, an inquiry report was thereupon submitted on 22.02.2021 before the Anti- Corruption Commission holding the view that the Respondent No.3 and his wife acquired both movable and immovable properties by their valid sources of income recommending that no prima-facie evidence was found against the allegations brought against the Respondent No.3 and his wife.
Against this backdrop, on 02.03.2021, the Respondent No.02 published a report in the Daily Inqilab stating, inter-alia, that an inquiry against the Respondent No. 3, Engineer Ashraful Alam and his wife has been terminated by obtaining a huge amount of money by the officers of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
On 08.03.2021, Mr. A.K.M Amin Uddin, the learned Deputy Attorney-General brought this matter to the notice of this court. Then, this court, by order No. 01 dated 08.03.2021, issued an order directing the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission to explain its position in this regard and to submit a report as to whether or not the allegations published in the newspaper are true and side by side the Respondent No.02, Mr. Syed Ahmed, the News Reporter of the Daily Inqilab was also directed to submit the papers and documents if any before this court, at the prayer of ACC, on which he made the reporting of corruption and releasing the Respondent No.3 and his wife from the inquiry proceeding.
Following the above order and the subsequent orders, Mr. Mohammad Shishir Manir, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 02 has submitted affidavit-in-reply and supplementary affidavit before this court and Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Anti-Corruption Commission has also submitted affidavit-in-compliance before this court.
As per submissions of the learned Advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Respondent No.2 by publishing the news report in the Daily Inqilab has offended, defamed and tarnished the image of the Anti- Corruption Commission and also challenged the efficacy of the Anti-Corruption Commission which is no doubt a mala fide act to malign the Anti-Corruption Commission which is punishable and he may be punished in accordance of law. On the flip side, the arguments of the learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 are that the Respondent No. 2 being duty bound
professionally and legally published the news report in the newspaper with regard to the irregularities and corruption with a view to bringing this matter to the notice of the authorities and the public as a whole and that for this reason, the Respondent No. 2 should be appreciated rather than being blamed. In the context of submissions and counter-submissions, now we want to discuss about the scopes and privileges of the newspapers/media and journalists in publishing news report in the newspaper as underlined in the Constitution and other laws.
It is worthwhile to mention that Article 39 of the Constitution has guaranteed freedom of thought and conscience. More specifically, Article 39 (2)(b) has clearly mentioned about the term of ‘freedom of the press’. Furthermore, Article 39 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh guarantees freedom of press and the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression subject to certain exceptions. That such
exceptions are namely (i) in the interests of the security
of the State, (ii) friendly relations with foreign states, (iii) public order, decency or morality, or (iv) in relation to contempt of court, (v) defamation or (vi) incitement to an offence. Apart from the above, investigative journalism is the necessary corollary of
such freedom. Investigation by a journalist includes research, gathering information from different sources, observation and due diligence. In doing so, the journalists act as the fourth pillar of democracy and consequently, serve the nation. They are the part and parcel of a democratic process. In a modern world, right
to information is being treated as one of the pre- conditions for expression of opinion. Journalists act as helping hands for ensuring rule of law and democracy which have been recognized as the basic structure of
the Constitution. They work as watchdogs and in appropriate situation; they ventilate information not to undermine any person but to serve the cause of justice.
In a democracy, there should be an efficient and
fearless press to act as watchdog of democracy. Newspapers make people aware of every field of society. In the present age, corruption is present in all walks of life. Newspapers play an important role in highlighting the menace of corruption and thereby the people are made aware of the corrupt practices if any prevalent in various state-run departments, organisations, agencies and private organisations. But of course, yellow Journalism is always disapproved, discarded and not appreciated at all. newspaper should concentrate on giving only the true picture of the society. Corruption is now a universal phenomenon. It is as old as our human society. The corrupt people are eating out the possibility and dream of the Nation dreamt by the father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the people of this country. The poorer and marginalised section of the people suffers the most for corruption. United Nations Convention against corruption was adopted in 2003 with a view to preventing, investigating and prosecuting the corrupt
people engaged in corruption. United Nations Convention against corruption has highlighted the preventive measures, criminalization and law enforcement measures, international cooperation and asset recovery. An entire chapter of the Convention is dedicated to prevention, with measures directed at both the public and private sectors. The Convention requires countries to establish criminal and other offences to cover a wide range acts of corruption, if these are not already crimes under domestic law. Countries are bound by the Convention to render specific forms of mutual legal assistance in gathering and transferring evidence for use in court, to extradite offenders. A highlight of the Convention is the inclusion of a specific chapter on asset recovery, aimed at returning assets to their rightful owners, including countries from which they had been taken illicitly. To us, the corrupt people are responsible to breed, create and sustain an atmosphere of corruption with impunity. Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish. Under the aforesaid discussions, our considered view is that the media and the journalists are constitutionally and legally authorised to publish news reports on corruption and corrupted practices along with money laundering if any including other important news on the matters of public interest.
In view of the submissions of the parties as noted above, now we want to discuss about the laws and legal decisions which have given protection to the journalists in not disclosing the source of information.
Section 2(5) of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011, provides that “whistleblower” means the person who discloses the public interest information to a competent authority, Section 4 of the aforesaid Act contemplates that any whistleblower can make public interest disclosure, if considered reasonable, to a competent authority and Section 5(1) of the aforesaid Act indicates that if any whistleblower discloses any authentic information under sub-section (1) of Section 4, his identity cannot be divulged without his consent.”
It may be noted that in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5396 (widely known as Pegasus Case), the Supreme Court of India felt necessity to protect the source of information of journalists. The relevant portion of said Judgment as laid down in paragraph No.40 is quoted below:
“An important and necessary corollary of such a right is to ensure the protection of sources of information. Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for the freedom of the press. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on the matters of public interest.”
According to Section 20(2) of the Press Council Act, 1974, no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any newspaper in respect of the publication of any matter therein under the authority of the Council. As per submissions of Mr. Mohammad Shishir Manir, the Respondent No. 02 being a “working journalist” for the Daily Inqilab may be afforded the protection of the provisions of the Press Council Act, 1974 and be dispensed with the submission of the papers and documents as required by this court.
The Rule 10 of the Seü¡bÑ pw¢nÔø abÉ fÐL¡n (p¤lr¡ fÐc¡e) ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2017 provides that secrecy shall have to
be maintained while using any published public interest information so that the identity of the informant or information source is not disclosed. Therefore, the required disclosure of the papers and documents by
Respondent No. 02, may be violative of the Rule 10 of
the Seü¡bÑ pw¢nÔø abÉ fÐL¡n (p¤lr¡ fÐc¡e) ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2017z
A reference to Section 2(4) of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011 and Rules, 2017 provide for protection of publisher/news agency of information of public interest relating to a) irregular and unauthorized use of public money; b) mismanagement of public resources; c) misappropriation or misuse of public money or resources; d) abuse of power or maladministration; e) committing criminal offense or illegal or prohibited acts; f) a conduct that is harmful or dangerous for public health, safety or to the environment; or; g) corruption. Since there are efficacious mechanism for the protection of journalistic information sources used for publication of public interest information, the required disclosure of the papers and documents by Respondents No.02 may be violative of the provisions of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011 and Rules, 2017.
Section 28B of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 provides that no information given by any person about any offence under this Act and specified in its Schedule be admitted as an evidence in any civil or criminal court, or no witness shall be allowed or compelled to disclose name, address and identity of the informant, or cannot be allowed to present or disclose any information which discloses or may disclose the identity of the informant. Therefore, the required disclosure of the papers and documents by Respondent No. 02, at the prayer of ACC, may be violative of the above provision of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in view of the above statement of law and analogical reasoning as well.
As per submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondent No.02, the Supreme Court is oath bound to protect the constitution and laws of the country including the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and is guardian to protect the freedom of press. In this regard, this Court may direct the relevant authorities to eliminate the corruption from the country upholding the freedom of press and protecting the source of information of the journalists.
It may be noted that the lack of protection to the whistleblower is one of the contributors to corruption. In this regard, our High Court Division in the case of Iqbal Hassan Mahmood alias and Iqbal Hassan Mahmood Tuku vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, reported in 60 DLR (HC) (2008)88, observed in paragraph No.183 as follows:
“In order to succeed in the campaign against corruption, we must first find out the factors contributing to corruption or failing in the prevention of corruption. In various international researches, conditions found favourable to corruption are lacking control over accountability of the government, over-
size of the government and/or excessive presence of the governance in the life of the citizens, absence of access to the information of the decision making process at the high level of the government, absence of democracy or dysfunctional democracy, lacking civil society and non-governmental organizations which could monitor the government, weak rule of law, weak legal profession, weak judicial independence and lacking protection of the whistle blowers, etc are found to be the main contributors to corruption.”
So, under the above facts and circumstances and the propositions of law, we have no hesitation to hold the view that the laws have given protection to the journalists in not disclosing the source of information.
Now we want to make discussion in respect of punishment of the journalist for the publication of the news report since the same, as per submission of Mr. Khan, has offended, defamed and scandalised the Anti- Corruption Commission.
As per Mr. Khan, the news report published by the Respondent No.2 is totally false, fabricated and manufactured one and has no basis at all and this sort of news is imaginary and has published with a view to scandalising and undermining the Anti-Corruption Commission and as such, this matter should not be taken lightly rather it should be taken and dealt with very strictly and that the reporter and the concerned newspaper may be punished with necessary punishments.
In order to address this issue, we want to refer to Section 12 of the Press Council Act, 1974, which runs as under:
Section 12(1) of the aforesaid Act contemplates that where, on receipt of a complaint made to it or otherwise, the Council has reason to believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the standard of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or a working journalist has committed any professional misconduct or a breach of the code of journalistic ethics, the Council may, after giving the newspaper or news agency, the editor or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as may be provided by regulations made under this Act, and if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist, as the case may be.
Section 12(2) of the aforesaid Act provides that if the Council is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, it may require any newspaper to publish therein, in such manner as the Council thinks fit, any report relating to any inquiry under this section against a newspaper or news agency, an editor or a journalist working therein, including the name of such newspaper, news agency, editor or journalist.
Section 12(4) of the aforesaid Act indicates that the decision of the Council under sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2), as the case may be, shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law.
Section: 13(1) of the aforesaid Act suggests that for the purpose of performing its functions or holding any inquiry under this Act, the Council shall have the same powers throughout Bangladesh as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed. Section 13(2) of the aforesaid Act speaks out that
nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to compel any newspaper, news agency, editor or journalist to disclose the source of any news or information published by that newspaper or received or reported by that news agency, editor or journalist.
Apart from the above, as per submission of Mr. Khan, the reporter may be punished since the matter is an offence. It may be noted that this matter is not a contempt proceeding. The court simply issued an order directing the Anti-Corruption Commission to explain as to whether or not the reporting on corruption and irregularities that has been made by the reporter, the Respondent No.02 is correct/true.
It is also evident from the record that immediately after passing the order by this court, the Anti- Corruption Commission has taken the initiative to start a fresh inquiry into the matter which was terminated earlier releasing the Respondent No.3 and his wife from the previous inquiry proceeding. Since it is not a contempt matter, so the question of imposing punishment on the reporter does not come within the ambit of contempt of this court.
It stems out from the record that the previous inquiry proceeding was not conducted following the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Manual, 2018.
It is pertinent to note that the Constitution has not given any impunity to any person except immune from arrest and prosecution in respect of any criminal offence. There is neither any constitutional nor any statutory or legal bar to conducting an inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Commission in respect of allegation of commission of offence mentioned in the schedule of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.
Moreover, Section 17(c) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 empowers the Anti-Corruption Commission to start inquiry with regard to any type of corruption.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates and the learned Deputy Attorney-General for respective parties and the legal propositions of law cited and discussed above, the matter at hand may is disposed of in the following manner:-
(1) Since an inquiry proceeding against the Respondent No.03 and his wife has already been started, that will continue in accordance with law subject to the condition that the officers who conducted the inquiry earlier will not be allowed to remain in the fresh inquiry;
(2) The Anti-Corruption Commission shall conclude the inquiry proceeding initiated against the Respondent No.3 and his wife within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order following the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004, the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 and the Anti-Corruption Commission Manual, 2018.
4) If the Respondent Nos.01 and 03 are offended, maligned and undermined by the news report of the news reporter of the Daily Inqilab and the newspaper, they being aggrieved by the same may lodge a complaint before the Press Council for appropriate remedies whatsoever.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this matter is disposed of.
The Anti-Corruption Commission is directed to proceed with the fresh inquiry proceeding in accordance with law and submit affidavit of compliance before this Court with the outcomes of the inquiry through the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division.
Communicate the judgment and order to the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission and other respondents at once.
Kazi Md. Ejarul Haque Akondo, J.
I agree