Bangladesh: MEDIA and the LAW

P
i
n
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
g
B
a
ngladesh on the Globe
Law and legal institutions are omnipresent in Bangladeshi society. So is the media, electronic media
in particular. People are involved with the law like it or not. They often complain about legalism.
They have developed a mind-set about the functioning of laws. Media plays a role in forming this
mind-set. Accordingly, there is an uneasy relationship between law and the media. The law of libel
and the social action litigations offer two glaring examples of this uneasy relationship. Legal
scholars may write volumes on the legal aspects of the issue. However, to my mind, there is a motion
factor in mounting up such a relationship. Let me explain how and why.
There was an age when law could have been traced from the kings dictum or stones inscription.
Afterwards, passing through the handwriting era, law entered into the printing age. Printing
provided law a kind of continuity and stability in its functioning. Now is the time for internet. The
voluminous works of law are mere a click away in todays world. The media, electronic media in
particular, have added a new dimension in the operational process of law. They have rather started a
sort of socialisation of law in the guise of serving legal news to the people at large. They are doing it
by presenting the law as information. News about law and courts occupy a greater share in the day
to day media news of Bangladesh. Here comes the question of motionthe pace of the legal
information through electronic media and the pace of age-old way of functioning law. More than 25
TV channels in Bangladesh, almost all with breaking news offers and hourly news services, have
added a huge pace to the role of law. The online newspapers have intensified the momentum.
Today, law itself is information. Law has its own life. Information is somewhat like the blood-stream
in that life. It is being transfused in the social system through the media vein. It is taking place so
swiftly that the news and the medium are becoming synonymous. Media scholar Marshall McLuhan
is perhaps correct when he says: the medium is the message! A startling example of McLuhans
words is the kattor TVs promo: shongbaad noi, shongjog! The news itself is somewhat the
connection! As legal news occupy the major place in the current Bangladeshi society along with its
all-embracing influence in its psychology, we need to see the extent to which Bangladeshi law and its

legal culture are ready as a means of communication. The pace of transmitting legal news, formation
of public opinion based on that and the legal step by the executive on the issue have got separate
pace and mode of operation. I think this pace-difference has a toll on the public confidence about the
efficacy of the Bangladeshi legal system.
As such, it seems that we have entered into a media culture of law. For, law is being unleashed as a
social construct. It is being turned into a phenomenon in a society packed with internet, power, pace
and emotion. This trend conditions the operational mode of legal institutions, influences the
sharpness of legal arguments and determines whether the social and moral values will have a place
in the legal construct.
This media culture of law inevitably breeds certain consequences. First of all, it oversimplifies the
legal remedies. You will watch courts passing order every day asking the executive to do or not to do
something. The otherwise unprepared executive body lags behind in carrying the order out. In the
meantime, another occurrence comes to the scene requiring a good-heart or a busybody to obtain an
order from the court with a view to sensitise the public opinion, making breaking news in the TV
scroll. Judicial remedies like writs and extra-judicial remedies like administrative directions from
higher position of the government fall prey of this trend. If a legal system is to function, some words
must have its weight in social belief. The media coverage of the litigants puts a cosmetic in face of
real justice and makes efficacious remedies like writs very inconsequential. I am afraid this will
take us into a point where we will hear from the executive: the court has ordered it, ask the court to
carry it out! I sense a shadow of this in the Prime Ministers stand about the court order of
arresting two RAB officials allegedly involved in the Narayangonj seven murder killings.
Secondly, the electronic media serve the legal news, music, religion, poverty, hue and cry all in the
same tray. It ushers in the same pace, same weight. It makes the public accustomed with judging
everything in the same spirit.
Thirdly, this makes the audience not merely the consumer of legal news but also an agent of law
interpreter. In a handsome pace, the breaking legal news is transmitted through the social network
like the facebook. The consumers (including the talk-showers) construe the law with its extra-legal
facets. In this way, legal opinion is concluded from merely a news title even without going into the
details of courts reasoning. Let me recall Suranjit Sengupta, an expert legislator of Bangladesh
parliament, who commented on the Jamaat trial debate between the incumbent law minister and the
former one. Gupta said: Now, you see, lawyers have got a problem. They interpret law from
different point of views. These are the intricacies of law, it should have been better if all these would
not have appeared in the media. (The quote is a free translation by the author from Senguptas
speech published in the Prothom Alo Online, 2 June 2014).
Fourthly, media culture of law apparently provides an alternative remedy to the victim. But I am
afraid it does not help the justice process in the long run. Let us take the example of a victim of
abduction or murder. The family of the victim gets public sympathy through the media coverage of
the incident and the follow up legal process. If it involves an incident having political implications,
the victims may expect to have a consolation message from the political giants. If fortunes favours,
they may also receive monetary compensation and sometimes political package like nomination of
one of the members of the victims family in the elections to follow. These all provide illustrations of
alternative remedy at the cost of justice. The Sagor-Runi killings, Lokman killing, Toki murder and

all other horrific cases substantiate this proposition.

Fifthly, we are living in a legal culture conditioned by extra-legal factors. Judges are social vehicles.
They are members of the same society we do live in. As such, their interpretation of law is strongly
influenced by social and political factors. But they have their own reasoning of a case decision. When
the news of a case decision permeates through the electronic media, it comes only in the form of
breaking news at the first instance. People at large do not read judgement, nor do they have that
opportunity every time. But they know the way the court system functions and is characterised by
the extra-legal factors. This social mind-set raises a question mark about the judicial decision
rendered by the court. The media culture of law has amplified the scope of raising such doubts. The
release of Tarique Rahman in the money laundering case by the subordinate court and subsequent
investigation against the judge of that case provides a good illustration on this point.
These all having said, I am not against ferrying law related news in the form of breaking news. But
I doubt, in Bangladeshi society, we are struggling to tackle the all-pervading social impact of legal
culture modelled by the media. It is true that media can play a pivotal role in building up a legally
enlightened citizenry. It is equally true that media puts a social pressure on the administration to
ensure their accountability to the people, particularly in a democracy where the parliament has a
non-impressive record of functioning. At times, the social pressure mounted by the media can act as
a catalyst to pass new laws and bring amendment to the existing laws. Unfortunately, instances
suggest that new laws passing as an outcome of this type are short-lived and not far-sighted. They
invite intervention within a remarkably short time. The city corporation law, truth commission law,
war crimes law, election laws are good examples of these kinds. A short-sighted new law invokes
injustice at times. Let us rather recall Tagore, the versatile genius of the Indian sub-continent:
raja vabe nobo nobo ainer chole/ naya srishti kori ami/ naya dhormo bole, ami puraton, mor jonmo
keba dei, ja tobo notun srishti, she shudhu onnai.
So, what to do? Should we ask the media to abandon their law related news and commentary talkshows? Not at all! There is a saying that: Cant tackle the media? Become the media. What initially
we need is to improve the technological proficiency of the legal actors at par with the pace of the
media. Second solution is in the form of a question. Why should every TV channels running in
Bangladesh be a news channel? Let music, theatre, films, agriculture, geography, sports some
independent space. Third, the media themselves should develop a self-evaluative mechanism of
permeating law related breaking news in a constructive way. For that we not only should study the
media law, but also should more concentrate on the intersection between law and the media.

Free the FREEDOM!

F
r
e
e
d
o
m

While reading a book called Freedom is not Free, by Shiv Khera I find an undeniable truth that
every generation needs to earn its own freedom. That means freedom is not free, in order to achieve
freedom there should be some sacrifice. Even the historic four freedoms propounded by Franklin
Roosevelt had arisen out of sacrifice of millions of people in the event of unprecedented danger and
instability during the World War II. Coming to the birth of Bangladesh, it was the freedom for which
three million people sacrificed their lives. But unfortunately freedom is not free at all in Bangladesh
even after forty four years of independence. Protection of freedom is constantly charging human
lives amidst of fear and instability. Now the question is how many lives we have to sacrifice to secure
freedom? A definite uncertainty might be the response.
The recent brutal killing of Avijit Roy, a writer and co- founder moderators of a popular blog MuktoMona (free thinking), reminds us again that the cost of freedom or free thinking can only be
compensated by sacrificing human lives. This is not the single incident where freedom is
compromised rather it is becoming a common phenomenon in the present context of Bangladesh.
According to the recently released report of Amnesty International (AI) (2014/15), Journalist, human
rights defenders and bloggers were continued to be attacked and harassed during the year of 2014.
It explicitly reported that the governments use of Section 57 of the Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) Act severely restricted the right to freedom of expression.
The curtailment of freedom by virtue of legal instruments not only disregards constitutional
commitment of freedom of expression but also jeopardizes the rule of law which demands for
individual liberties.
This is true that freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 39 of the Constitution of
Bangladesh is not absolute it also encompasses permissible restrictions but that does not in way
mean the curtailment of freedom without reasonable justification. In the case of Santokh Singh V.
Delhi Administration, AIR 1973, SC 1091, it was held that in determining the reasonableness of a
restriction upon freedom of expression stipulated a reasonable balance must be drawn between the
need for the freedom in a democratic system of government provided by the constitution and the
social interest in the prevention of disorder and anarchy. Mahmudul Islam in his constitutional law
of Bangladesh stated that the restriction under Article 39 is to be imposed by law and when
discretion is conferred on any authority, the law should provide sufficient guidelines for the exercise
of the discretion. In this regard, the extent to which people can exercise their freedom and the
extent to which the state can impose restriction by virtue of saving clauses are yet to be ascertained
in the context of Bangladesh.

In this missing line, State is always found to be winner in case of taking away of freedom of
individuals. Since the voices of individuals are not empowered and on other hand the voice of state
mechanisms are overpowered, it is obvious that the vulnerability will be borne by people at large.
Freedom is regarded as an essential tool by virtue of which a citizen of a country can pursue legal
avenue with a view to realizing his or her entitlements. But amidst of lawlessness prevalent in
Bangladesh accompanied with innumerable enforced disappearance cases, number of extra-judicial
killings and so called shootouts, impunity of wrongdoers particularly law enforcing agencies, it
would not be an exaggeration to opine that freedom of individuals are hindered by the hands of
powerful state mechanisms and the availing of legal avenue by virtue of the tool of freedom remains
a far cry.
The alleged misuse of incompatible legislation by the state machineries, the impunity of law
enforcing agencies, as reported by Amnesty International, facilitates the religious groups in
Bangladesh to exploit the religious sentiments of common people and at the same time threatens the
free thinkers. The AI report went on to state that freedom of expression was also threatened by
religious groups. In at least 10 instances, these groups were reported to have spread rumours that a
certain individual had used social media to insult Islam, or had engaged in allegedly anti-Islamic
activity in the workplace. At least five people were subsequently attacked; two were killed and
others sustained serious injuries.
These incidents not only carry the mere story of brutal killings and sufferings but also reveal the
dominant presence of anti-freedom elements even within the state instrumentalities. A culture
devoid of freedom and freethinking cannot enlighten the torch of liberty rather it generates
intolerance, disharmony and bigotry which leads to deviate from the core values of society.

Let me conclude with the words of Gilbert Francklyn that every deprivation of freedom is a species
of servitude or slavery. Are we indulging in a new a form of slavery?