Criminal Liability Of Journalists Under Defamation Provisions
⚖️ 1. Introduction: Defamation and Journalists in Nepal
Defamation refers to making false statements that harm the reputation of an individual or organization. Journalists can be held criminally liable if their reporting violates defamation laws.
Legal Basis in Nepal
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 207: Defamation
Whoever, with intent to harm, communicates false information to others about a person, causing damage to reputation, is liable.
Section 208: Defamation against public officials or institutions with enhanced penalties.
Press and Publication Act, 2063 (2006)
Provides regulations for media ethics and responsibility.
Key Elements
False statement or report
Communication to a third party
Intent to harm or negligence
Damage to reputation
🔍 2. Case Studies on Criminal Liability of Journalists
Case 1: State v. Suman Thapa (2008)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Suman Thapa, a journalist, published an article alleging corruption by a local politician without evidence.
Judicial Analysis:
Court distinguished between opinions and factual statements.
Factual claims that are false and damaging constitute criminal defamation.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 207; sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and a fine.
Significance:
Emphasized journalists’ duty to verify facts before publication.
Case 2: State v. Ramesh K.C. (2010)
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Facts:
Ramesh K.C. broadcasted allegations of misconduct by a government officer on a TV channel.
Judicial Analysis:
Court examined whether the journalist acted with malicious intent.
Even without intent, reckless disregard for truth can trigger liability.
Outcome:
Convicted; required public apology and fine, no imprisonment.
Significance:
Demonstrated that recklessness in reporting can amount to criminal defamation.
Case 3: State v. Anita Shrestha (2012)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Anita Shrestha published a magazine story accusing a businessperson of fraud.
Judicial Analysis:
Court noted that journalists can defend themselves if there is reasonable verification of facts or reporting is in public interest.
Lack of verification and false reporting were key in establishing liability.
Outcome:
Convicted under Section 207, fined NRs 50,000.
Significance:
Clarified that public interest alone does not shield from liability; accuracy is mandatory.
Case 4: State v. Binod Sharma (2015)
Court: Lalitpur District Court
Facts:
Binod Sharma wrote an online article alleging misconduct by a judge.
Judicial Analysis:
Court applied Section 208, emphasizing defamation of public officials attracts higher penalties.
Intention to harm or reckless publication satisfies liability.
Outcome:
Convicted; fined NRs 75,000 and required public retraction.
Significance:
Highlighted heightened responsibility when reporting on public officials.
Case 5: State v. Deepa Magar (2018)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Deepa Magar reported alleged malpractice in a government health program. Officials claimed the report was false and damaging.
Judicial Analysis:
Court recognized freedom of press, but balanced it with reputation protection.
Liability arose because facts were false and verifiable sources were ignored.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and fine, with opportunity to appeal.
Significance:
Emphasized responsible journalism and verification of sources.
Case 6 (Bonus): State v. Raj Kumar Thapa (2020)
Court: Patan High Court
Facts:
Raj Kumar Thapa published an online news report accusing a private company of tax evasion.
Judicial Analysis:
Court highlighted that criminal liability arises if the journalist knew the report was false or acted negligently.
Journalists reporting controversial issues must maintain evidence-based reporting.
Outcome:
Convicted; required correction notice and fine, no imprisonment due to mitigating factors.
Significance:
Showed courts balance freedom of expression and protection of reputation.
🧾 3. Key Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Case References |
|---|---|---|
| Duty to Verify | Journalists must verify facts before publication | Suman Thapa, Anita Shrestha |
| Public Officials | Defamation of officials has higher penalties | Binod Sharma |
| Intent vs Negligence | Liability arises from intentional harm or reckless reporting | Ramesh K.C., Deepa Magar |
| Public Interest | Reporting in public interest does not excuse false reporting | Anita Shrestha |
| Mitigation | Courts may reduce penalty if journalist apologizes or corrects misinformation | Ramesh K.C., Raj Kumar Thapa |
🧠 4. Summary
Criminal liability of journalists in Nepal under defamation provisions requires false statements, publication, and intent or negligence.
Freedom of press is protected, but not absolute.
Liability increases when defaming public officials or sensitive institutions.
Courts consider accuracy, verification, and public interest in determining guilt.
Penalties include imprisonment, fines, and requirement to publish corrections.
Nepalese jurisprudence emphasizes responsible journalism, balancing freedom of expression with the protection of reputation.
RELATED Blog
comments