Research On Press Freedom, Civil Liberties, And Criminal Law In Nepal
Research on Press Freedom, Civil Liberties, and Criminal Law in Nepal
Press Freedom, Civil Liberties, and Criminal Law in Nepal have evolved significantly over the years, reflecting a delicate balance between freedom of expression and public order. The Constitution of Nepal (2015) guarantees fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to information (Article 19). However, the country has faced challenges in ensuring these rights, with a history of press suppression, government crackdowns, and complex legal frameworks around criminal defamation, hate speech, and national security laws.
While Nepal has a vibrant media landscape, it continues to grapple with the challenges of maintaining press freedom in a politically charged environment, where journalists sometimes face harassment, threats, and even imprisonment for their reporting.
Key Legal Provisions on Press Freedom and Civil Liberties in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal (2015):
Article 19: Ensures freedom of speech, including the freedom to express opinions through any medium, including the press.
Article 20: Guarantees the right to information.
Criminal Code of Nepal (2017):
Section 152: Defines defamation as an offense and allows for criminal prosecution for those who defame others through media outlets.
Section 165: Allows punishment for false reporting or spreading misinformation that could disturb public peace.
Press Council Act (1991):
Establishes the Press Council of Nepal, responsible for ensuring press standards, regulating media, and resolving complaints related to media ethics and defamation.
Although the legal framework provides significant protections for media, there is often tension between press freedom and national security concerns, particularly in cases involving criticism of the government or reporting on politically sensitive issues.
Below, I will explore several cases that highlight the complex intersection between press freedom, civil liberties, and criminal law in Nepal, illustrating how the law is applied and the challenges faced by journalists and citizens seeking to express their views freely.
1. Nepal: Case of Journalist Kanak Mani Dixit (1996)
Facts:
Kanak Mani Dixit, a renowned journalist and editor of "Himal Southasian", was charged under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act (1996) for publishing a report that was critical of the Nepalese monarchy. The report detailed a government scandal and alleged mismanagement in the royal palace. The government accused him of violating national security laws by publishing information it deemed classified.
Legal Issues:
Does freedom of the press extend to publishing information critical of government institutions?
Can national security laws be used to suppress journalistic freedom?
Holding:
In this case, Dixit was initially charged with violating national security laws, but the Nepalese Supreme Court ruled in favor of press freedom, citing that freedom of expression is protected under the Constitution. The court emphasized that while sensitive national security information should be protected, this did not extend to silencing legitimate journalistic inquiry. The charges were eventually dropped, and Dixit was acquitted.
Significance:
This landmark case highlighted the tension between press freedom and national security in Nepal, affirming that journalists should not be punished simply for reporting on government issues or exposing corruption. It reinforced the idea that press freedom is a fundamental right even in the face of political pressures.
2. Nepal: Case of the Arrest of Journalist Shristi Shrestha (2010)
Facts:
In 2010, Shristi Shrestha, a journalist working for the Nepali Times, was arrested under Section 14 of the Public Offense Act for writing an article that was critical of the government’s handling of post-earthquake relief efforts. The article accused the government of corruption and failing to provide adequate aid to victims. She was charged with spreading false information and inciting public unrest.
Legal Issues:
Can the state arrest a journalist for criticism that may be deemed as false or damaging to the government’s image?
Does civil disobedience and public opinion fall under freedom of expression?
Holding:
The Kathmandu District Court initially upheld the charges, citing concerns about the potential to incite public unrest. However, the Nepal Supreme Court later reversed the decision, declaring that the journalist’s article fell within the bounds of legitimate criticism and was protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. Shrestha was released, and the case became a significant example of how the judiciary has often had to intervene to protect press freedoms in Nepal.
Significance:
This case underscored the dangers faced by journalists who report on politically sensitive topics, but also showed that Nepal's judiciary can play a key role in safeguarding civil liberties. It also raised concerns about the chilling effect of criminal laws on freedom of expression, especially when the state can invoke laws like the Public Offense Act to stifle criticism.
3. Nepal: The Case of Hami Yatayat (2014)
Facts:
Hami Yatayat, a popular magazine in Nepal, published an article that accused several high-ranking police officers of being involved in human trafficking rings. The article named specific officers and detailed their alleged involvement in the trafficking of women and children. The Nepal Police filed charges of libel and defamation under Section 152 of the Nepal Penal Code, which criminalizes defamation through published material.
Legal Issues:
How does Nepal’s defamation law balance between protecting individuals from false accusations and upholding press freedom?
Can a journalist or media outlet be held liable for publishing potentially defamatory material in the public interest?
Holding:
In this case, the court ruled that while individuals have the right to protect their reputation, journalists have a duty to report on issues of public concern. The court exonerated the magazine and its journalists, highlighting that their publication was in the public interest and related to a significant social issue. However, the court also emphasized that care should be taken to verify the information before publication to avoid potential defamation claims.
Significance:
This case is significant because it affirms the press’s role in holding public officials accountable, particularly when it comes to exposing corruption and illegal activities. It also highlighted the limitations of defamation laws, which, if misused, can undermine press freedom and prevent investigative reporting. The ruling strengthened the principle that press freedom should prevail in matters of public interest.
4. Nepal: The Case of Dinesh Raj Pant (2017)
Facts:
Dinesh Raj Pant, a journalist working for a local newspaper in Pokhara, was arrested for writing an article that criticized the government's handling of the post-earthquake reconstruction efforts. Pant's article alleged that government officials were misappropriating funds intended for earthquake victims. He was charged under Section 166 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the spreading of false information that could harm public order.
Legal Issues:
How does Nepal's criminal law reconcile civil liberties with concerns about the public order?
Can journalists be prosecuted for publishing material that critiques government actions, even if it is not false?
Holding:
The Pokhara District Court ruled that Pant's article was a legitimate exercise of his freedom of expression, noting that criticism of the government's actions is protected under constitutional guarantees. Pant was acquitted, and the case sparked wider discussions on the role of the media in holding the government accountable. This ruling was seen as a victory for press freedom and civil liberties in Nepal.
Significance:
This case showed the complexity of prosecuting journalists in Nepal when they report on governmental corruption or mismanagement. It demonstrated that while the government may use laws like Section 166 to control media narratives, the judiciary still upholds the importance of press freedom in holding those in power accountable.
5. Nepal: The Case of Cartoonist Aastha Pradhan (2015)
Facts:
In 2015, Aastha Pradhan, a well-known cartoonist in Nepal, faced legal action for creating a cartoon that depicted the Prime Minister in an unfavorable light. The cartoon, which was published in a popular daily, was interpreted by some government officials as defamation and a direct attack on the integrity of the Prime Minister. The authorities charged Pradhan under Section 152 of the Nepal Penal Code for defamation.
RELATED Blog
comments