ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 be punished for making derogatory comments/posting criticism in his personal blog namely bangladeshwarcrimes.blogpost.com on 11.11.2011 and 28.01.2013 that constitute contempt of the Tribunal and it fixed 11.05.2014 for further order. 10. On behalf of the contemnor an affidavit in opposition was filed. The contention so agitated which may be succinctly be summarized are : (i) The articles fall within the parameter of permissible ‘fair’ criticism and the same have been initiated in ‘good faith’ and in the ‘public interest’, (ii) The application is not maintainable as it was brought by a third party, (iii) Proceeding with this application would be a total abuse of process due to inordinate delay in bringing the application, (iv) That the criticism done by circulating the articles does not demonstrate that the materials therein are contemptuous , (v) Contemnor’s intention was not to undermining public confidence in the administration of justice, (vi) Criticism was reasonable and was based on accuracy of information and made on sober language and not to ridicule the authority of the Tribunal, (vii) The contemnor having LL.M degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, UK is qualified to write on legal issues. 11. In addition to these, the contemnor also contended that in the third article, as regards ‘death figure in 1971’ the contemnor commented, without any improper motive that “The Tribunal could have dealt with the issue of the ‘number of deaths’ [on 1971] in a more judicial manner rather than referring to it like repeating a ‘mantra’ that has little or no factual basis”. However subsequently the contemnor also regretted the use of the word ‘misleading’ and the above ‘phrase’ and thus removed the same from the articles [second and third article] [[ 12. Hearing on the matter took place for several days. The learned counsels for both parties took pain, with numerous citations on relevant aspects involved with the matter in issue, in advancing their respective argument. 4