The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed lawyer Muhammad Mohsen Rashid to submit a written explanation of his Facebook post.
He was asked to give the explanation in affidavit by November 25 over his Facebook post in which he expressed losing faith in the judiciary, referring to the handling of his appeal related to the interim government formation.
A seven-member bench headed by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed verbally asked for the explanation after additional attorney general Aneek R Hoque drew the court鈥檚 attention to the Facebook post.
Aneek described lawyer Mohsen Rashid as a 鈥榟abitual contemnor鈥� and his post as 鈥榟ighly contentious.鈥�
A suo motu contempt proceeding was sought after Mohsen concluded his argument seeking leave to the appeal he filed on March 11 against the High Court鈥檚 February 5 rejection of his writ petition over the presidential reference.
Aneek argued that the court had taken up Mohsen鈥檚 case on September 2 and it wanted to dismiss it due to his absence.
The court later kept it in the hearing list on the attorney general鈥檚 prayer.
The court also adjourned till November 25 the hearing on Mohsen Rashid鈥檚 leave-to-appeal petition against the HC decision that had dismissed his writ petition.
Mohsen challenged the legality of the president鈥檚 reference and the SC advisory opinion on the formation of the Professor Muhammad Yunus-led interim government.
The chief justice told Mohsen that the court could not take up his case as it had been hearing the non-party caretaker government case for 10 days.
During the proceedings, when Mohsen Rashid defended his Facebook post as an exercise of free speech, attorney general Md Asaduzzaman rebuked him.
The attorney general commented that he had 鈥榗rossed the limit鈥� and should 鈥榢eep quiet鈥�.
The court then asked the attorney general to clam.
Mohsen, however, regretted over his Facebook post during the hearing.
The court asked him to explain his position to it through an affidavit over his Facebook post.
On September 15, Mohsen had written on Facebook that judges appeared to be avoiding his case.
He described the case as a matter of 鈥榠mmense public and constitutional importance,鈥� alleging that the justice system seemed to 鈥榮way with the wind.鈥�
In the court, Mohsen argued in person that the law ministry, not the president, had unlawfully sought the SC advisory opinion under Article 106 of the constitution.
He further alleged that the signatures of the then chief justice and the then senior-most judge on the opinion were forged.
He urged the court to examine the original documents.
The High Court, in its February 5 decision, dismissed Mohsen鈥檚 petition as 鈥榤isconceived and vexatious鈥�.
It observed that the president had lawfully sought the opinion under Article 106 amid an extraordinary national situation.
It also held that the advisory opinion was constitutionally valid and could not be challenged under writ jurisdiction.