For many reasons, our stance for the judiciary can be impaired from ignorance of how the justice system works in Bangladesh. It is a common perception of the general people that judges are to some extent out-of-touch. This is because we are not taught properly at school about the judicial system of Bangladesh. Thus, we grow up with limited knowledge on how the justice system works and what the courts do in the real world.
Although some people have their first-hand experience of the judicial system of Bangladesh, most of the common people enhance their knowledge of the judicial activities from different types of media such as electronic media, print media, online news etc. Nonetheless, we know that the reports we receive from the media are very limited, selective, and sometimes haphazard. More importantly, mostly, the media tend to focus on controversial cases and stories to make their news striking for the audience. Thus, the common people may escape knowing the real outcome of the judicial activities and this is where the knowledge gap may be created between the common people and the judiciary. For example, while we receive some parts of the judgments through various media, we cannot see the whole story of a judicial magistrate performing with extraordinary levels of expertise in court, whereas, we often see the activities of executive magistrates operating the mobile courts as they utilise the media to telecast their operations through their media wing. This is because most of the government organs have sub-organs / committees to deal with the media, while there is no such authority within the judiciary. Due to the absence of such a media wing, sometimes, we miss many crucial outcomes of the judiciary.
As there is no official spokesman or press officer under the organogram of the judiciary, there is no such way to observe the real scenario of the judiciary. However, in a democratic country like Bangladesh, it is likely to see that the judiciary should involve the public effectively to ensure that this core organ is performing its duties rightly. Besides, the general purpose of letting the general people know about the outcomes of judicial activities, it has also a jurisprudential value which is very crucial for any society. Out of the five theories of punishment, the deterrent theory is significant in controlling crimes in the society, stated Salmond. He also stated that the object of punishment is not only to prevent the wrongdoer from committing the crime again but also to make him an example in front of the other such persons who have similar criminal tendencies. Additionally, the aim of this theory is not to seek revenge but scare people. Thus, punishment should be exemplary so that others may take a lesson from his experience. Considering the aim of the deterrent theory, it is a core duty of the judiciary not only to punish the wrongdoer but also to let the common people know about the consequence of doing crime, and this is possible through the task of the judicial spokesman. While the mass media highlight the crimes and victims mostly, we do not get much news of the culprit(s) getting punishment(s) for committing crime(s). As a result, in most cases, the potential offenders are not learning any lesson.
Thus, a measure can be taken to enhance the relationship between the common people and the judiciary. In this regard, we can look at many other countries which have press judges; for example: England, Norway, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Denmark, Romania, Netherlands, Poland etc. Generally, the main function of a press judge is to notify the press on legal decisions, but the press judge may have some additional responsibilities too. For example, in the Netherlands, the press judges meet the press twice a year to discuss their experience. In the judicial system of Bangladesh, we do not have such a kind of wing to deal with the media. Thus, still, a gigantic hedge exists between the common people and the judiciary.
To break the barrier between the common people and the judiciary, the judiciary can set up a media wing containing a press judge or a media officer. This body may have two different sub bodies containing local spokesman and national spokesman. At the local level, the responsible spokesman would contact the local press to let the press know about the crucial judgment(s), whereas, at the national level, the spokesman would meet the press to talk about the overall judicial activities, may be once or twice a year.
In general, the media wing’s main duty would be to meet the press to talk about the sensitive and vital judgments. In particular, the press judge would disclose the summary of the judgment including the substance of the whole fact, judgment, and reason(s) behind the judgment so that the media would be able to publish the news appropriately. In such a way, the purpose of letting the common people know the outcome of any crucial case would be served by the judicial spokesman. Alongside performing the main duty, the press judge would also promote transparency to ensure justice.
To work as a spokesman of the judiciary, a person should be well trained and able to provide the message(s) on behalf of the judges. Surely, an ordinary person would not be able to handle this type of task without such technical training. Thus, a spokesman could be a trained lawyer or could be a senior judge, so that a spokesperson could explain the complex point(s) of any judgment. Undoubtedly, a media wing of the judiciary would reduce the gap between the common people and the judiciary, and it would not be an expensive add-on for the judiciary of Bangladesh. In fact, in this modern era, a media wing is an essential part of a modern judiciary which we yet to introduce but a demand for the time being.
(Md Mustakimur Rahman is Faculty Member, Dept. of Law, Notre Dame University Bangladesh. Email: [email protected] )
