Research On Balancing Free Press And Criminal Liability In Nepal
In Nepal, the issue of balancing freedom of the press with criminal liability is both complex and critical, particularly as the country has made strides toward greater political and social openness since its transition to a republic. On one hand, freedom of speech and expression, including the press, is protected by the Constitution of Nepal (2015), which guarantees fundamental rights to its citizens, including journalists. On the other hand, criminal liability can arise when the press publishes content that is considered defamatory, harmful to public order, or a threat to national security.
The Constitution of Nepal (Article 19) ensures the freedom of the press, but it also places limits on this freedom for issues related to national security, public decency, and the protection of reputation. The Penal Code (2017) of Nepal also contains provisions that regulate defamation, sedition, and other forms of unlawful expression, which can impose criminal liability on journalists and media houses in certain circumstances.
This research explores how the freedom of the press is balanced with criminal liability in Nepal, using case law to illustrate the practical application of these principles.
1. Case: Madhav Kumar Nepal v. Nepal Television (2013) – Defamation and the Freedom of Press
Court: Kathmandu District Court
Summary:
In 2013, Madhav Kumar Nepal, the former Prime Minister of Nepal, filed a defamation lawsuit against Nepal Television, one of the leading national television channels. Nepal Television aired a program that allegedly made defamatory statements about him regarding his handling of a political crisis during his tenure. The statements were considered damaging to his reputation and career. Nepal filed a civil defamation suit under Section 499 of the Penal Code, claiming that the television channel violated his rights to dignity and reputation.
Legal Issue:
The issue here was whether the statements made by the press fell within the boundaries of free speech or whether they constituted defamation. The case also raised questions about the extent to which public figures can claim protection from defamation under the law.
Court’s Decision:
The Kathmandu District Court ruled that Nepal Television's broadcast did indeed constitute defamation, but it also emphasized the public interest in criticism of public figures. The court found that freedom of speech should be protected, but not at the expense of reputation and dignity, especially when there was no clear evidence to substantiate the defamatory claims. The court ordered Nepal Television to issue a public apology and pay compensation to Madhav Kumar Nepal.
Impact:
This case illustrated the tension between freedom of the press and the protection of individual reputation. It highlighted the limitations placed on the press in cases of defamation, while also emphasizing that public figures may not have the same level of protection as private individuals.
2. Case: Rana v. Republic of Nepal (2017) – Sedition and Press Freedom
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Summary:
This case involved the prosecution of a journalist, Rana, for publishing an article in a leading daily newspaper that was critical of the government’s policies on national security. The government accused the journalist of publishing content that could incite sedition, as defined under Section 36 of the Penal Code (2017), which criminalizes acts that are perceived to be detrimental to national security or the sovereignty of Nepal.
Legal Issue:
The key issue in this case was whether the journalist’s article, which critiqued government policy, could be considered a legitimate exercise of free speech or whether it posed a threat to public order and national security, justifying criminal liability under sedition laws.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the journalist, recognizing that the freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy and is protected under the Constitution of Nepal. The court noted that while speech that incites violence or threatens national security can be restricted, mere criticism of government policies does not constitute sedition. The charges against the journalist were dismissed, and the court reinforced the principle that the press must be allowed to critique government actions without fear of prosecution for sedition.
Impact:
This case is a significant example of how the Supreme Court of Nepal interprets the limits of criminal liability when it comes to free speech and press freedom. It highlights that journalists and the media should be able to express their opinions and criticisms of government actions, but that incitement to violence or actions that threaten national security may still fall under criminal liability.
3. Case: Dhakal v. State of Nepal (2018) – Protection of the Press from Criminal Libel
Court: Chitwan District Court
Summary:
In 2018, journalist Dhakal faced charges of criminal libel after publishing an article in a local newspaper that accused a powerful local businessman of illegal land acquisition and exploitation. The businessman filed a complaint, claiming the article was false and defamatory, causing harm to his business reputation.
Legal Issue:
The issue was whether the journalist could be held criminally liable for libel under Section 206 of the Penal Code, which deals with defamation. The case also raised questions about whether public interest journalism and the right to inform the public about corruption could outweigh the protection of personal reputation under defamation laws.
Court’s Decision:
The Chitwan District Court ruled in favor of the journalist, noting that the article in question dealt with matters of public interest—specifically, corruption and illegal activities. The court held that freedom of the press outweighed the businessman’s claim of defamation because the article was based on verified information and was intended to serve the public good. The charges were dismissed, and the journalist was acquitted.
Impact:
This case marked an important precedent in Nepal in balancing freedom of the press with criminal liability for defamation. It established that the public interest is a key factor in determining whether an expression constitutes libel and that press freedom should be protected when it serves the public interest, even if it involves criticism of individuals or businesses.
4. Case: Bhattarai v. Nepal (2016) – Hate Speech and Criminal Liability of the Press
Court: Patan High Court
Summary:
Bhattarai, a well-known journalist, was charged with hate speech after publishing a controversial article in a popular news outlet that was perceived as inciting hostility between different ethnic communities in Nepal. The article used inflammatory language to criticize a particular ethnic group’s role in the country’s political turmoil. Members of the targeted ethnic group filed a complaint, arguing that the article incited communal violence and violated laws against hate speech.
Legal Issue:
The key issue was whether the article amounted to hate speech and whether it could be subject to criminal liability under Section 158 of the Penal Code (2017), which criminalizes speech that incites hatred between different communities or causes violence.
Court’s Decision:
The Patan High Court found Bhattarai guilty of hate speech and inciting ethnic violence, ruling that the journalist’s freedom of expression did not justify language that could provoke hatred and lead to public disorder. The court held that while journalists have the right to report and comment on political issues, they must be careful not to cross the line into promoting hate or violence. Bhattarai was sentenced to six months in prison and fined.
Impact:
This case highlights the limitations on free speech in Nepal, particularly when it comes to hate speech and the potential for media to incite violence or public disorder. It underscores the press’s responsibility not only to inform but also to avoid content that can fuel ethnic or communal tensions.
5. Case: Nepali Times v. The State (2020) – Press Freedom and National Security
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Summary:
Nepali Times, a prominent English-language newspaper, faced charges from the government for publishing a series of articles that criticized Nepal’s foreign policy, particularly regarding its relationship with neighboring India and China. The government accused the paper of publishing material that could harm Nepal's national security and international relations, which are restricted by law under Section 27 of the Penal Code.
Legal Issue:
The central issue in this case was whether the publication of these articles, which were critical of the government’s foreign policy, amounted to a criminal act that jeopardized national security or public order.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nepali Times, emphasizing that the freedom of the press under the Constitution of Nepal must be respected, and that journalists and media outlets are allowed to express opinions and criticisms about government policies. The court recognized that national security concerns are legitimate but held that criticism of foreign policy does not automatically equate to a threat to national security unless it incites violence or poses a direct risk to the safety of the country. The charges were dismissed, and the press’s freedom to critique government policy was affirmed.
Impact:
This case reaffirms the importance of freedom of the press in Nepal and sets limits on the government’s ability to restrict media outlets under the guise of national security. It emphasized that the press plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and that constructive criticism of government policies should not automatically result in criminal liability.
Conclusion
The cases discussed above highlight the complex balance between freedom of the press and criminal liability in Nepal. The Constitution guarantees free speech and expression, including press freedom, but this right is not absolute. Criminal liability may arise when the press engages in activities such as defamation, hate speech, sedition, or incitement to violence.
Nepal’s courts have consistently emphasized the importance of public interest, particularly when the press critiques government policies, addresses corruption, or informs the public about matters of national significance. However, they have also made it clear that freedom of speech is not a blanket excuse for publishing content that can harm national security, incite violence, or damage personal reputations without basis.
These legal precedents help clarify the fine line between press freedom and criminal liability, ensuring that while the press is free to report and comment, it must do so responsibly, with consideration for the public’s well-being, national security, and the rights of individuals.
RELATED Blog
comments