ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 articles] – these are all reckless imputations against the Tribunal. (f) The contemnor instead of seeking unconditional apology deliberately attempted to justify his reckless comments claiming the same to be ‘fair’ and in the ‘interest of public’. Reckless imputation negates “good faith” and ‘fairness’. (g) The contemnor David Bergman is a ‘habitual contemnor’. Earlier he was critically cautioned with observation, in a contempt proceeding by the Tribunal-1. But he continued criticizing the judicial process of the Tribunal in derogatory and unfair manner that tends to demean the authority of the Tribunal in the mind of public. (h) The comments the contemnor made in the articles he posted in his blog in fact were calculated to obstruct the due course of justice and the authority of the Tribunal as well. It is immaterial to prove or whether the alleged comments obstructed the administration of justice. In this regard, the learned counsel however relied upon the decision of Indian Supreme Court in the case of Arundhati case (2002) 3 SCC 343) Para 21and also the observation made in the case Riaz Uddin of the Appellate Division of Bangladesh Supreme Court, para 61 of the judgment. IV. Deliberation and Finding on some issues (i) Tribunal: Is it a ‘court of record’ 19. We do not agree with the submission made on part of the learned counsel defending the contemnor that the ‘Tribunal’ is not a court of record’. The statute itself empowers the Tribunal to punish for contemptible act by drawing proceeding [section 11(4) of the Act of 1973]. 20. Peacock, C.J. in Re. Abdool, 8 WR Cr 31 observed: "There can be no doubt that every Court of Record has the power of summarily punishing the contempt" 7