Judge files defamation case against Channel 24 MD AK Azad, 6 others

A judge has filed a defamation case against Channel 24 Managing Director AK Azad and six other officials and journalists of the private television station, accusing them of broadcasting false and defamatory reports about him.

Former Lalmonirhat joint district and sessions judge Md Ariful Islam, who is currently attached to the Law and Justice Division, filed the case application with the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Sefatullah in Dhaka on Monday.

After recording the plaintiff's statement, the court kept its order pending and directed the Detective Branch (DB) of police to investigate the allegations and submit a report.

Jahangir Alam, counsel for the plaintiff, confirmed the development.

Read More

AK Azad warns of 10,000 job cuts amid AI shift

The other accused are Searchlight Editor Faisal Alam, Executive Director Zahirul Alam, Head of Multimedia Rajib Khan, Assignment Editor Maksud Un Nabi, Senior News Editor Tuhin Kayum and News Reporter Zahid Hossain.

According to the case application, Channel 24 aired a report titled “Case Exists, But No Trace of Plaintiff or Witnesses: Investigation Surrounding Judge Creates Stir” during its regular news bulletin and its 9pm investigative programme Searchlight on 9 October.

The plaintiff alleged that his remarks were deliberately distorted and selectively edited in the report. He further claimed that, after the Law and Justice Division temporarily suspended him on 15 October, the channel aired another report suggesting that the suspension had followed its earlier broadcast.

Ariful Islam, however, said a departmental case had been filed against him following a complaint by Md Solaiman, former district and sessions judge of Shariatpur, who is currently a judge at the Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal in Magura.

He said he was temporarily suspended pending an investigation into allegations of inefficiency and misconduct under the Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules, 2017.

The plaintiff claimed that the channel's assertion linking his suspension to its report was entirely false, fabricated and defamatory.

As evidence of the alleged distortion of his remarks, he submitted a pen drive to the court. He also sought to have the charges taken into cognisance and summons issued against the accused.