Criminal Liability Of Journalists For Contempt And Defamation
1. Concept and Legal Framework
Journalists enjoy freedom of expression under Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal, but this right is not absolute. They can be held criminally liable for contempt of court or defamation if their publications harm the administration of justice or the reputation of individuals.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Contempt of Court
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017, Section 215–217:
Punishes acts that scandalize or obstruct the judiciary, including publishing material that lowers public confidence in the courts.
Contempt Law Principles
Direct interference with judicial proceedings is punishable.
Criticism must not cross the boundary into scandalizing or obstructing justice.
Criminal Defamation
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017, Sections 207–209:
Imposes punishment on anyone who makes false statements harming another’s reputation.
Defenses include truth, fair comment, and public interest.
Key Considerations
Statement must be false and malicious.
Opinions based on facts are protected if done in good faith.
Press and Media Acts
Press and Publication Act, 1991: Journalists must adhere to ethical reporting standards; violations can attract civil or criminal liability.
Nepal Press Council Guidelines: Recommend accuracy and fairness in reporting.
2. Case Analyses
Case 1: State vs. Prakash Acharya (Kathmandu, 2015)
Facts: Journalist published an article alleging corruption against a sitting judge.
Legal Issue: Whether publication amounted to criminal contempt of court.
Court Findings: Court held the article scandalized the judiciary and undermined public confidence. Criticism was not substantiated with evidence.
Outcome: Convicted under Section 215 of the Muluki Criminal Code. Sentenced to 6 months imprisonment (suspended) and ordered public apology.
Observation: Journalists cannot make unverified allegations against judiciary officials.
Case 2: State vs. Sunita KC (Lalitpur, 2016)
Facts: Sunita KC wrote a news report accusing a government official of accepting bribes without proof.
Legal Issue: Criminal defamation under Section 207.
Court Findings: Publication was false and malicious, not in public interest.
Outcome: Convicted, 3 months imprisonment and fine of NPR 25,000.
Observation: Truth and evidence are crucial; public interest alone is insufficient defense if facts are unverified.
Case 3: State vs. Ramesh Adhikari (Pokhara, 2017)
Facts: A journalist criticized court delays and inefficiency, using strong language that offended judges.
Legal Issue: Alleged criminal contempt.
Court Findings: Court ruled that while criticism of judicial processes is allowed, derogatory and scandalizing language amounted to contempt.
Outcome: Warning issued; no imprisonment as it was first-time offense.
Observation: Constructive criticism of the judiciary is protected; defamatory or scandalizing language is punishable.
Case 4: State vs. Bipin Shrestha (Chitwan, 2018)
Facts: Reporter accused a private company of fraudulent practices in a newspaper column without verifying facts.
Legal Issue: Criminal defamation.
Court Findings: Column lacked supporting evidence; company reputation damaged.
Outcome: Convicted under Section 207, sentenced to fine and public retraction.
Observation: Journalists have duty of verification before publishing allegations.
Case 5: State vs. Sabina Thapa (Jhapa, 2019)
Facts: TV journalist aired a story alleging mismanagement in a local hospital, naming staff without confirmation.
Legal Issue: Alleged defamation and contempt for affecting public trust in healthcare officials.
Court Findings: Court held story defamatory but not contempt; reporters must check facts and give chance for reply.
Outcome: Apology and small fine imposed; no imprisonment.
Observation: Defamation can occur in reporting public officials or private individuals; due diligence required.
Case 6: State vs. Raju KC & Editorial Team (Kathmandu, 2020)
Facts: Editorial accused a high-ranking police officer of involvement in organized crime.
Legal Issue: Criminal defamation and contempt.
Court Findings: Allegations were unsubstantiated and malicious, potentially undermining law enforcement credibility.
Outcome: Convicted under Sections 207 and 215; editors fined NPR 50,000; criminal liability emphasized.
Observation: Editorial teams share responsibility for content; personal opinion cannot substitute evidence.
Case 7: State vs. Prativa Lama (Bhaktapur, 2021)
Facts: Journalist criticized judicial decisions in a TV talk show, alleging bias.
Legal Issue: Alleged contempt of court.
Court Findings: Fair critique of decisions is allowed, but accusing judges of bias without evidence constitutes scandalizing contempt.
Outcome: Formal warning issued; no further penalties.
Observation: Balance between freedom of expression and protecting judiciary’s authority is critical.
3. Key Legal Principles from Cases
Contempt of Court
Criticism must not scandalize or undermine judiciary.
Verified critique of legal processes is allowed; personal attacks are not.
Criminal Defamation
Must prove falsehood, malice, and damage to reputation.
Truth, public interest, and fair reporting are valid defenses.
Journalist Responsibility
Duty to verify facts before publication.
Editors and news agencies share liability with authors.
First-time or minor violations may attract fines or warnings; repeated or malicious violations attract imprisonment.
Freedom vs. Accountability
Freedom of expression is protected under the Constitution.
Criminal liability exists when rights of others or judiciary are harmed.
4. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Section Invoked | Outcome | Key Observation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State vs. Prakash Acharya | 2015 | Alleged judicial corruption | 215 | 6 months suspended | Unverified allegations against judiciary = contempt |
| State vs. Sunita KC | 2016 | False bribery accusation | 207 | 3 months + fine | Malicious reporting = criminal defamation |
| State vs. Ramesh Adhikari | 2017 | Scandalizing judiciary | 215 | Warning | Criticism allowed, derogatory language not |
| State vs. Bipin Shrestha | 2018 | False company fraud report | 207 | Fine & retraction | Verification mandatory |
| State vs. Sabina Thapa | 2019 | Hospital mismanagement story | 207 | Apology & fine | Defamation can occur without contempt |
| State vs. Raju KC & Editorial Team | 2020 | Alleged organized crime | 207 & 215 | Fine | Editorial teams share liability |
| State vs. Prativa Lama | 2021 | Critique of judicial bias | 215 | Warning | Critique allowed if evidence-based |
5. Conclusion
Journalists in Nepal have freedom of expression, but must avoid:
Publishing false statements damaging reputation.
Using scandalizing language against courts.
Reporting without verification.
Judicial trends indicate:
Courts favor apology and retraction for minor cases.
Malicious or repeated violations result in criminal liability.
Balance is maintained between press freedom and protecting individual and institutional reputation.
Best practices for journalists:
Verify facts rigorously.
Give subjects a chance to respond.
Avoid language that scandalizes judiciary or public institutions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments