Channel 24 receives contempt of court notice following lawsuit
Logo
Judge Ariful Islam has sent a legal notice to private television channel Channel 24 over allegations of contempt of court and broadcasting defamatory news. The notice was served on seven individuals, including the channel’s Managing Director A K Azad.
On Friday, Supreme Court lawyer Md Azizur Rahman Dulu sent the notice on behalf of Judge Ariful Islam.
The other recipients are Channel 24’s Searchlight Editor Faisal Alam, Executive Director Zahirul Alam, Head of Multimedia Rajib Khan, Assignment Editor Mahmud Un Nabi, Senior News Editor Tuhin Kayum and Reporter Zahid Hossain.
Earlier, on November 9, Judge Ariful Islam filed a case against the same seven individuals at the Dhaka Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court. The court accepted the case and directed the Detective Branch (DB) of police to investigate.
The notice alleges that a report broadcast on Channel 24 on November 9 contained defamatory remarks about Judge Ariful Islam. It also alleges that the channel broadcast contemptuous comments concerning a matter pending before the court. The report aired that night under the headline, “Suspended Judge’s Countermove; Files Case Against Seven Channel 24 Employees for Reporting on Corruption and Irregularities.”
According to the notice, the report included distasteful comments and defamatory statements about Judge Ariful Islam. It also allegedly misrepresented his temporary suspension by referring to him as a “dismissed judge,” which the notice described as false and defamatory.
The notice stated, “Following a complaint by former Shariatpur District and Sessions Judge Solaiman, a departmental case was filed against Judge Ariful Islam. He has been temporarily suspended in the interest of the investigation and has been instructed to submit a response within 30 days.”
The notice further claimed that despite the departmental case remaining under investigation, Channel 24 deliberately portrayed Judge Ariful Islam as guilty. It also alleged that a confidential investigation report was made public, which was contrary to the law and judicial process.
