ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 lewdness. Judiciary of Bangladesh is not only to uphold its dignity and rule of law. It feels obligation to value the nation’s emotion and sentiment too which are mingled with our heard earned independence. 42. On part of the contemnor it has been tried to ‘justify’ the ‘truthfulness’ or ‘factual correctness’ of the criticism he made. First, it is to be noted that in creating confusion about the ‘death figure in 1971’ the contemnor has cited many sources describing conflicting information. The contemnor did not arrive at decision as to which information he considered correct or accurate one. Without going into accuracy of any of information why he opted to initiate a debate on a sensitive issue involving nation’s emotion? Of course, his intention was not ‘fair’. Besides, factual correctness of comment made in the alleged criticism cannot be recognised as ‘defence’. In this regard we rely upon the observation made by our Apex Court in the case of Advocate, Riaz Uddin Khan vs. Mahmudur Rahman [ 63 DLR(AD) 2011, page 53, para 79] which is as below: “There are numerous decisions of the Apex Courts of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh that truthfulness or factual correctness is not recognized as defence in the law of contempt. There is hardly any decision of English or of this sub-continent on the jurisprudence of contempt that such defence to be recognized.” 43. Criticism made on ‘death figure in 1971’ though not relates to merit of any of cases tried by and pending before the Tribunals does not seem to have been designed in ‘good faith’. And the criticism so made, though cites sources, disgraces and demeans nation’s wishes and holy emotion. We fail to understand how such criticism attacking the nation’s emotion conforms to ‘public good’. It is true that debate on the issue of ‘death figure in 1971’ does not relate to merit of any case under the Act of 1973. But provoking debate on this issue by circulating criticism in personal blog rather makes the contemnor gravely disrespectful to the nation. Living in the light and air of this land, the contemnor, a foreign national, has exceeded limit of his professional ethics. 44. We reiterate that we always welcome post verdict criticism but at the same time we cannot allow an individual or a journalist making such 13