ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 citing the said sources? Why did he not mention the issue in the documentary he contributed to get it prepared? Why he decided to raise this sensitive issue, particularly when all the cases remained pending before the Tribunals? The issue of ‘death figure in 1971’ involves highest sacrosanct emotion of the nation. What was his intention in opening the door of criticism on such a perceptive issue? And what he intended to let the Tribunals learn from his criticism? 39. It will be worthy to remember the comment of Justice Black in dissenting judgment in Dennis versus US (1951)341 US. “There comes a time when even speech loses its constitutional immunity. Speech innocuous one year may at another time fan such destructive flames that it must be halted in the interests of the safety of the Republic. When conditions are so critical that there will be no time to avoid the evil that the speech threatens, it is time to call a halt. Otherwise, free speech which is the strength of the Nation will be the cause of its destruction…” 40. The time the contemnor chooses to circulate the criticism on ‘death figure in 1971’ thus fans the flame of grave disgrace in the mind of the nation, although it does not relate to the merit of the case and such criticism cannot turn down the settled history. The issue could have been researched when the contemnor had been engaged with the activities of preparing a documentary on war of liberation, as claimed. But the time he chooses to initiate such criticism surely halts the grace and interest of the nation. Such criticism was not, in any way, in the ‘interest of public’. His effort was thus divorced from ‘fair intention’. It has obviously caused severe hurt to the emotion of the nation and also belittled the authority of a court of law, in making its observation on this issue, reiterating the settled history. 41. We do not consider the intention of circulating the writing in his blog a ‘fair’ one. Although the learned counsel Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan appearing for the contemnor expressed regret for causing hurt to the emotion of the nation by making such criticism. But it is sorry to note that the contemnor has not preferred to express any extent of remorse and repentance, for this criticism touching the emotion of the nation. Rather, he remained silent in his written reply. We condemn his 12