Research On Freedom Of Press And Criminal Justice In Nepal
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 17 guarantees freedom of expression including the freedom of the press, subject to reasonable restrictions for national security, public order, morality, and preventing defamation.
Press and Publication Act, 1991
Governs registration of media outlets, journalistic responsibilities, and penalties for offenses like defamation, incitement, or spreading misinformation.
Criminal Code (Muluki Ain, 2017)
Sections relevant to press-related offenses include:
Defamation (Sec 372–376)
Incitement against the State (Sec 108–110)
Obscenity and Hate Speech (Sec 278–280)
Key Principle: Freedom of the press is guaranteed, but criminal law may limit it when reporting threatens public order, national security, or individual rights.
2. Case Law Examples
Case 1: Ramesh Shrestha v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2005)
Facts:
Journalist Ramesh Shrestha published reports criticizing local government corruption.
Authorities filed criminal defamation charges under the Press and Publication Act.
Legal Issues:
Conflict between freedom of press (Article 17, Constitution) and criminal defamation provisions.
Whether reporting corruption falls within “reasonable exercise” of press freedom.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the journalist.
Held that public interest reporting is protected under the Constitution. Criminal defamation cannot be used to suppress legitimate journalism.
Significance:
Landmark case reinforcing public interest journalism as protected.
Clarified limits of government authority to file criminal charges against journalists.
Case 2: Kantipur Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Government (Supreme Court, 2009)
Facts:
Kantipur newspaper published articles on police misconduct. Police filed criminal charges alleging defamation and incitement.
Legal Issues:
Conflict between the right to report on public officials and criminal liability for defamation.
Outcome:
Court dismissed charges against the newspaper.
Held that media has a constitutional role to act as a watchdog, and criminal prosecution for reporting misconduct must meet a high threshold.
Significance:
Strengthened press freedom in reporting on state officials.
Introduced a “public duty defense” for journalists.
Case 3: Nepal Press Council v. Editor of Annapurna Post (Press Council, 2012)
Facts:
The editor published a story on political party corruption without prior verification of some claims.
Complaint filed with Press Council alleging journalistic negligence.
Legal Issues:
Balancing freedom of press with professional standards and criminal liability under defamation provisions.
Outcome:
Press Council issued a formal warning but did not recommend criminal prosecution.
Court later upheld that minor errors in reporting do not constitute criminal offenses unless intent to defame is proven.
Significance:
Clarified the distinction between journalistic errors and criminally liable actions.
Reinforced self-regulatory mechanisms as preferred over criminal action.
Case 4: Udaya Bhattarai v. Nepal Police (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts:
Journalist Udaya Bhattarai was arrested while covering protests against local authorities, accused of inciting public disorder.
Legal Issues:
Freedom of press versus criminal charges for incitement (Sec 108–110, Criminal Code).
Whether covering public protest is equivalent to incitement.
Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled Bhattarai’s coverage was protected under Article 17.
Arrest was declared illegal, and the journalist was released.
Significance:
Affirmed that reporting on protests is part of press freedom.
Police cannot equate journalistic coverage with criminal incitement.
Case 5: Naya Patrika vs. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2017)
Facts:
Newspaper published investigative report exposing misuse of public funds by local authorities. Officials filed charges for criminal defamation and spreading false information.
Legal Issues:
Conflict between investigative journalism and criminal liability.
Whether the government can use criminal law to suppress negative reporting.
Outcome:
Court dismissed criminal charges, noting that reporting on government corruption is in public interest.
Emphasized the principle of proportionality, i.e., criminal law should not disproportionately restrict press freedom.
Significance:
Established precedent for protection of investigative journalism.
Criminal defamation laws cannot be used to shield officials from scrutiny.
Case 6: Kantipur TV vs. Nepal Telecommunications Authority (2018)
Facts:
TV channel Kantipur aired critical reports on government telecom policy. Regulatory authority tried to block broadcast citing alleged misinformation.
Legal Issues:
Freedom of broadcast (part of press freedom) vs regulatory control over content.
Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of Kantipur TV.
Held that the government cannot arbitrarily restrict press without clear evidence of harm to public order.
Significance:
Strengthened electronic media freedom.
Confirmed that press freedom extends to TV and digital media under Nepalese law.
3. Key Observations and Trends
Press freedom is constitutionally guaranteed but subject to reasonable restrictions. Courts narrowly interpret these restrictions.
Criminal defamation cases against journalists are often dismissed if reporting serves the public interest.
Police and regulatory authorities cannot equate reporting with incitement unless direct evidence exists.
Self-regulation (Press Council) is preferred over criminal prosecution for journalistic errors.
Digital media enjoys similar protection as print, reinforcing freedom of information in modern contexts.
Judicial support for investigative journalism strengthens accountability and transparency in governance.
RELATED Blog
comments