Hafizur Rahman was granted six months’ interim bail by the High Court on 2 August in the Cumilla Sohagi Jahan Tonu murder case, but some state counsels concerned were unaware of the development. The news also did not reach court reporters in time.
The matter came to light only after Hafizur was released from jail on the evening of 4 August. Later, after the state moved the Appellate Division, his bail was stayed on 6 August and he was ordered to surrender.
For journalists covering the judiciary, the episode highlighted a wider concern: the consequences of being unable to directly observe proceedings inside courtrooms.
Court reporters say restrictions on their entry have left them dependent on delayed information about important hearings and orders, limiting their ability to report developments from the country’s highest court. They argue that the situation has affected the principle of open justice and the public’s right to know.
Law Reporters’ Forum (LRF) says journalists have been unable to enter some Supreme Court courtrooms, including the Appellate Division, since 7 January. As a result, developments in sensitive cases, including bail orders, may remain unknown until after an accused person has already left court or prison.
LRF General Secretary Arafat Munna said the delay in learning about Hafizur’s bail in the Tonu murder case was linked to restrictions on journalists’ access to courtrooms.
“When news of an accused person’s bail is published in the media, the state often gets an opportunity to take necessary legal steps based on that information,” he said. “But if the news is not published on time, the state may also fail to learn about the matter promptly.”
Journalists say the restriction has disrupted a practice of Supreme Court reporting that continued for more than two decades.
They said that on 7 January, when reporters went to cover a hearing at the Appellate Division, security personnel prevented them from entering. Since then, they have been unable to directly follow hearings and proceedings at the country’s highest court.
Legal reporters say their work helps translate complex constitutional issues, judicial observations, important cases and public interest orders into information accessible to ordinary citizens.
Since the Appellate Division delivers final orders and verdicts in cases appealed from the High Court, journalists and other stakeholders believe direct access to proceedings is necessary to maintain continuity and accuracy in court reporting.
Despite repeated discussions with the Supreme Court registrar general, no resolution has been reached after more than eight months.
Supreme Court Registrar General Muhammad Habibur Rahman Siddiquee told TIMES that journalists’ concerns regarding media access had been brought to the attention of the chief justice.
“If there is any updated decision on this matter, we will be able to inform you,” he said.
The LRF has repeatedly urged the chief justice to restore journalists’ access to courtrooms.
In a letter sent through the registrar general on 29 January, the organisation requested uninterrupted entry for journalists during Supreme Court hearings, arguing that constitutional, public interest and nationally important cases are dealt with at the highest court.
The organisation referred to Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 35 and 39 of the Constitution and Order 10 of the Supreme Court Rules while highlighting issues related to open courts and media freedom.
The forum also pointed out that journalists had covered proceedings from courtrooms in major cases, including constitutional amendment cases, the 21 August grenade attack case and crimes against humanity cases related to 1971.
On 3 May, marking World Press Freedom Day, Supreme Court beat reporters held a human chain in front of the Supreme Court’s main entrance, covering their mouths with black cloth to demand restoration of access and the right to gather news.
Journalists argue that preventing them from observing proceedings is not only a professional setback but also affects the public’s access to information.
They say journalists had entered Supreme Court courtrooms and collected news for decades, but after Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury assumed office, an oral restriction was imposed on journalists’ entry.
Supreme Court Bar Association President AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon said he supports journalists’ demand for access.
He said open justice is conducted in courts and that arrangements could be made through registration, passes or permission if necessary.
“Neither the Supreme Court Bar Association nor I support banning journalists from entering courtrooms,” he said.
According to him, journalists and litigants should have controlled access in the interest of transparency.
“What is happening inside the courtroom must be known to litigants and the nation,” he said.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Syed Mamun Mahbub said the media is the fourth pillar of the state and that the judiciary does not have its own spokesperson.
“If journalists are denied access to court in important cases, misleading information may increase, which will not be helpful for the judiciary,” he said.
He added that legal remedies exist if anyone publishes incorrect reports.
“But stopping access is not the right approach,” he said.
