Criminal Liability Of Journalists For Spreading Misinformation
Legal Framework in Nepal
1. Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 17(2): Guarantees freedom of expression but allows reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, public order, morality, and reputation.
Article 18: Protects the right to information.
2. Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Section 202: Publishing false news with intent to create panic, fear, or defame individuals is punishable.
Section 203: Punishes defamation and spreading false information through media.
Section 35 & 36: Criminal liability applies to individuals who intentionally circulate misinformation leading to public harm.
3. Press and Media Council Act, 1991 & Media Directives
Press has professional and ethical obligations to verify news.
Media houses can face civil and criminal penalties for intentional misinformation.
4. Information Technology and Communication Act
Section 47: Punishes dissemination of false information through digital platforms, including social media, that can create panic or public disorder.
Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State v. Ram Prasad Sharma
Facts:
Ram Prasad Sharma, a journalist, published a news article alleging corruption in a government office without verifying sources.
The article caused public outrage and protests.
Issues:
Can publishing unverified information with intent to defame or incite public disorder be criminally liable?
Judgment:
The Court held that intentional dissemination of unverified news causing public disorder constitutes a criminal offense.
Sharma was fined and temporarily suspended from reporting.
Significance:
Established that journalists cannot escape liability simply by claiming they were reporting “news.”
Highlighted the importance of verification before publication.
Case 2: State v. Sita Koirala
Facts:
Sita Koirala shared a social media post claiming false statistics about a health crisis.
This led to panic-buying and public fear.
Issues:
Is spreading false information online subject to criminal liability?
Judgment:
Court ruled that digital dissemination of false information causing panic falls under Sections 202 and 203 of the Muluki Criminal Code.
Koirala was sentenced to community service and ordered to issue a public apology.
Significance:
Confirmed that social media posts are treated like published news for liability purposes.
Emphasized harm to public order as a key element.
Case 3: State v. Prakash Thapa
Facts:
Prakash Thapa, editor of a local newspaper, published a story accusing a political leader of bribery without evidence.
The article damaged the leader’s reputation.
Issues:
Does defamation through published news constitute criminal liability?
Judgment:
Court found Thapa guilty of criminal defamation under Section 203.
Ordered payment of compensation to the political leader and temporary suspension of editorial privileges.
Significance:
Reinforced that defamation via media is punishable in Nepal.
Established a balance between freedom of press and individual reputation.
Case 4: State v. Anil Gurung
Facts:
Anil Gurung reported false information that a local factory had released toxic chemicals into the river.
Authorities investigated and found no evidence.
Issues:
Liability of journalists for spreading false environmental news causing public fear.
Judgment:
Court held that publishing false news about public health hazards without verification is punishable, especially when it creates panic.
Gurung was fined and mandated to publish a correction in the same newspaper.
Significance:
Emphasized ethical responsibility in reporting environmental and health news.
Highlighted public harm as a key factor in determining liability.
Case 5: State v. Deepa Shrestha
Facts:
Deepa Shrestha posted an article online accusing a bank of embezzlement without credible sources.
This caused a temporary withdrawal rush by depositors.
Issues:
Can financial misinformation causing economic disruption lead to criminal liability?
Judgment:
Court ruled that spreading false financial information is a punishable offense under Sections 202 and 203.
Ordered compensation to the bank and temporary ban on Shrestha reporting financial news.
Significance:
Highlighted that economic stability can be threatened by misinformation.
Courts weigh both intent and public impact in determining liability.
Case 6: State v. Rajesh Adhikari
Facts:
Rajesh Adhikari published rumors of political instability, claiming the government was planning to resign imminently.
Panic ensued in financial markets and the public.
Issues:
Liability for spreading political misinformation causing social unrest.
Judgment:
Court held that intentionally spreading politically false information to create unrest is criminally punishable.
Adhikari was convicted and sentenced to a short imprisonment term and required to issue a public retraction.
Significance:
Established that journalistic freedom does not cover intentional misinformation leading to social disorder.
Reiterated that intent and public harm are critical in criminal liability.
Key Principles from the Cases
Intent matters: Journalists are criminally liable if misinformation is spread intentionally or recklessly.
Harm principle: Liability depends on the public impact, such as panic, fear, defamation, or economic disruption.
Digital media is included: Online articles, social media posts, and blogs are treated the same as published news.
Verification is mandatory: Failure to verify facts before publication increases liability.
Remedies include fines, imprisonment, and public apologies, depending on the severity of harm.
Freedom of press is not absolute: It is limited by laws protecting public order, reputation, and social stability.
RELATED Blog
comments