On August 28, I learned from the daily newspapers and electronic media that on that day, a bench of the High Court had ordered the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) to stop the broadcast and remove the speeches and speeches of fugitive Tarique Rahman in the media and social media. In response to this order, BNP-affiliated lawyers created a disturbance in the court, throwing files and papers at the honorable judges, and forcing the judges to leave the court and go to their chambers.

This type of hooliganism by BNP-Jamaat members in the court is not the first. The 28 August incident reminded me of the same kind of hooliganism in 2011. During the hearing in a double bench of the High Court led by me on the complaint that BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia had made objectionable remarks about our sacred constitution, several BNP-affiliated lawyers attacked us. They threw bottles, stones, and brickbats. On the instructions of the Supreme Court Registrar General, he filed a case against a few identified persons and they were arrested.

According to the latest news, BNP-Jamaat lawyers occupied the courtroom for the whole day, as a result, no work could be done in that courtroom for the rest of the day. As a result, many litigants had to be denied justice. However, these BNP-Jamaat lawyers are always the first to raise their voices for democracy, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law, and they do not forget to complain to their foreign masters.

The case was filed to seek an order to stop the broadcast of the speeches of fugitive Tarique Rahman in the media and social media. The speeches of this fugitive accused have been circulating in various media for the past few years, so this case was necessary because the broadcast of the speeches of a fugitive accused is not only illegal but also a punishable offense.

In the language of the law, a fugitive accused is called an "outlaw". The definition given in the world's greatest Black's Law Dictionary states that an outlaw is "a person who is deprived of the benefits and protections provided by law, especially a fugitive accused (fugitive)." From the definition of Black's Law Dictionary, it is clear that a fugitive accused cannot get any protection or benefit of law. This provision is prevalent in almost all countries of the world, due to which a representative or lawyer cannot appear in any court or authority on his behalf while he is a fugitive. In simple terms, he is an invisible person in the eyes of the law. Since he is an invisible person, his speech cannot be broadcast.

In this case, no one is a party except Tarique Rahman and a few state officials. Tarique Rahman is a fugitive, so no one can appear in court on his behalf. However, some BNP lawyers have illegally and illegally appeared in court to speak on behalf of Tarique Rahman only to disrupt court proceedings. Since they are not lawyers for any party in the relevant case, the court cannot give them a chance to speak.

Some people are saying that the ban on the broadcast of Tarique Rahman's speeches is a violation of his human rights. It should not be difficult to understand if there is even a minimum knowledge of law that a person cannot enjoy any kind of right while he is a fugitive, as stated clearly in the Black's Law Dictionary. In addition, the right to freedom of expression guaranteed in Article 39C of our Constitution is certainly for a person who is a visible, visible person, not for any fugitive or invisible person. Giving this freedom to a fugitive means helping him to remain a fugitive accused. The right granted in Article 39 cannot be enjoyed for the purpose of inciting crime or contempt of court. Both prohibitions apply to the case of a fugitive accused, as his right to broadcast his speech means continuing to commit the crime of being a fugitive and contempt of court. He has been ordered by the court to surrender.

Apart from that, the rights given in Article 39 are only for Bangladeshi citizens. The appropriate authorities have long since said that the expatriate convicted fugitive Tarique Rahman was deprived of Bangladeshi citizenship long ago.

According to Section 52A of our Penal Code, it is a serious crime to help a fugitive accused. The accomplice of the crime of helping Tarique Rahman to flee can also be sentenced to life imprisonment. The relevant provision of the Penal Code states that "providing shelter means making arrangements for the fugitive accused to stay in a place, providing him with food, drink, money, clothing, arms, ammunition, or any other kind of assistance not specifically mentioned in this section."

Therefore, the interpretation of the word "shelter" is very broad, meaning that any act not specifically mentioned in this section is also included in the interpretation of "shelter provision." In this sense, those who broadcast Tarique Zia's speech are also guilty of Section 52A of the Penal Code. In order to create confusion among the people, they have told journalists that they have submitted a petition to the Honorable Chief Justice that they do not trust this bench. It is so ridiculous that such a nonsense statement does not look good on the lips of any lawyer. Only the person who is a party in the relevant case can make such a petition to the Honorable Chief Justice. No outsider can make such a petition. It is reported that a lawyer had filed a petition to make an indefinite client a party, which the relevant court had rejected for very logical and legal reasons.

The subject matter of this case is not something that can be called public interest litigation. Here, the only issue is whether Tarique Zia's speech can be broadcast as he is a fugitive accused. Therefore, there can be no interest of any other person in this matter, which is called "locus standi" in the language of law. The meaning of making such a petition is to deliberately waste the time of the court, for which appropriate action can be taken against these lawyers.

In addition, a petition must be made to the Honorable Chief Justice through legal process. After the petition for party affiliation was rejected, they could have petitioned the Appellate Division, but they did not do so, perhaps knowing that the Appellate Division might react angrily if they took such a baseless petition with no reason, cause, or substance. That is why they later demanded distrust of the relevant court to create smoke. The court did not give any order for which distrust can be expressed. By rejecting a completely mindless petition, the court has obeyed the law. The patience shown by the court during this hooliganism is unprecedented. When I was hooting on my bench in 2011, I immediately called the police and arrested all the hooting in the interest of protecting the dignity, independence, and absolute authority of the court. If such hooliganism is tolerated, not only the independence of the judiciary but also the rule of law, the sovereignty of the constitution, and democracy will be tarnished. Therefore, there is no alternative to taking appropriate legal action against all these hooligans. They have not only committed contempt of court but have also committed more serious offenses. Leaving them means condoning impunity. The Bar Council must also fulfill its responsibilities towards them. It must be remembered that if the dignity and authority of the court are destroyed, nothing will remain, and the lawyers who are hooting will also have to sit down.

Writer: Retired Appellate Division Judge