Pakistan Observer
8th November 1967
AROUND THE COURTS
Prejudicial speech case Conviction of Mujib upheld
(By Our Court Correspondent)
The conviction of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman by the Magistrate Court for a prejudicial speech at Paltan Maidan on March 20 last year was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dacca, Mr. Kaisar Ali on Tuesday.
The judgment was passed on an appeal by Sheikh Mujib against the sentence of 15-months imprisonment under the Defence of Pakistan Rules by Magistrate Mr. Afsar-ud-din Ahmad who held the trial inside the Dacca Central jail and passed the sentence there on April 27.
The appeal was heard 10 days ago. The Judge, however, minimised the sentence to eight months’ imprisonment.
This is one of the several prejudicial speech cases against the 48-year-old Awami League leader who is now detained under DPR for over one and a half years. In this case, as in other cases, the Sheikh had been accused of bringing or likely to bring into disaffection, hatred or contempt in the public eye the Government of Pakistan established by law.
The speech under reference criticised the Government for disparity in prices, and industrial growth between the two wings of Pakistan, the weakness in the defence of East Pakistan and advocated a peaceful struggle on the basis of the erstwhile 6-point programme.
Mr. Kaisar Ali, the appellate judge, stated that in the case the basic document for consideration was the speech itself. He said the magistrate after examining three reporters and a magistrate came to the conclusion : “There cannot be any reason to disbelieve the shorthand note of the speech.” The judge said he, “found no cause of disagree”.
It is evident from the speech read as a whole with a liberal mind, the judgment said, that the speaker freely criticised the Government first, for continuing a policy of economic exploitation of East Pakistan; second, for neglecting the defence of this wing, thereby jeopardising its very existence. In the end, he called upon the audience to build up an active resistance for change of the Government through a peaceful and democratic struggle on the basis of his 6-point programme, the judgment added.
“Now I have to examine,” Mr. Ali said, “the possible natural and ordinary consequences on the audience of the speech which was delivered in highly emotional language interpersed by rhetoric and hyperbole”.
Continuing the judgment said the meeting was attended by 15,000 people. It can very well be perused that the audience consisted mostly of East Pakistanis and they must have come from various walks of life, the larger section being uneducated, politically ignorant and not with logical bend of mind.
It may be further remembered that the speech was delivered within a few months of the Indo-Pak conflict broke on September 6, 1965. A sense of insecurity in the public mind was not altogether a thing of the past, the judgment added.
Considering all these facts, the judge said, the speech was likely to have left an unsavoury … of the listeners, filled them with dissatisfaction towards the Government and created a sense of alarm in their minds regarding the future.
Mr. Kaisar Ali referred to the defence argument that the accused as a political leader had a legal right to place his party programme before the public and that the 6-point programme on which he spoke was never declared illegal.
He ruled out the contention, saying: “This is true. But the Political Parties Act did not give any right to the speaker so that he could do any act or say anything which is likely to create disaffection and contempt towards the Government es. ablished by law.”
The judgment further referred that the defence cited the admission of even a Central Minister of the present regime in the National Assembly that disparity between the two wings existed in various departments of the Central Government. And even Mr. Abul Hashim, (the chief organiser of East Pakistan Convention League) in his book “Integration of Pakistan” pointed out the sense of East Pakistan during the war on account of its defective defence arrangement.
“The argument is fallacious,” Mr. Ali further ruled. He said that only the very educated class and those interested in the polemics of politics would care to read the book. Similarly, the Minister, by his speech in the National Assembly, attracted attention of the few. In both the instances, the readers were expected to be of logical mind and not victims of unrestrained emotions. Therefore, their reaction could not be similar to that of most of the audience before whom the accused spoke, the Judge held.
“Thus having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record. I hold that the speech was likely to create a feeling of dissatisfaction towards the Government established by law”, held Mr. Ali.
He explained that the speech was likely to cause fear or alarm in the minds of East Pakistani listeners regarding the future of the province in respect of its economics and defence. He held that the finding of the magistrate that the speech was likely to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens was not correct.
He opined that the sentence awarded by the magistrate was “somewhat severe”. Taking what he said, “a broad view of the matter” he ordered that a reduced sentence would serve the ends of justice.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু তৃতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক॥ দ্বিতীয় পর্ব