The arrest and subsequent release of journalist Kishor Shrestha has brought two important issues to the fore: press freedom and journalistic responsibility. Shrestha was arrested over a report, while police also raided his office and residence, confiscating computers and electronic devices. The Supreme Court’s decision to release him has raised wider questions about how such disputes should be handled in a democracy. Shrestha, editor of Jana Aastha, was arrested after the publication of a report accompanied by a controversial photo about Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Amarkant Chaudhary that hinted an alleged relationship with a woman. The court’s intervention has indeed mattered beyond Shrestha himself. While releasing Shrestha on personal bond without bail, the Supreme Court pointed out that journalists cannot be arrested merely for writing and publishing news, nor can their offices and residences be searched and their belongings confiscated without a valid warrant. The law and the procedures should be followed and proper reasons should be provided while taking such a coercive method. Shrestha's case is mostly about determining if the published picture/report had breached privacy. Chaudhary is an elected lawmaker and a public figure like him cannot claim unlimited privacy when their conduct has a bearing on public trust, political integrity or the responsibilities attached to public office. Meanwhile, even if a person is a parliamentarian, they remain a private citizen with all rights. A photo of a politician kissing somebody does not, on its own, constitute public interest. It is true that if journalism is merely driven by the thirst for sensational headlines, it will easily be perceived unethical journalism.
“Press Council has attacked press freedom and journalists' righ...
However, the SC highlighted in its verdict that the photo in question had already been uploaded onto social media by the complainant herself, a fact to which the complainant did not apparently object. The accusation of privacy breach, therefore, did not hold water in the eyes of the apex court. This also raised questions- was arrest necessary? Was a raid necessary? Did investigators really need to seize computers and phones? When the state uses such powers against a journalist, it must show much more than the existence of a complaint.The distinction is crucial because a raid can have a chilling effect far beyond one journalist. A newsroom depends on confidential sources, unpublished material, notes and communications. Seizing its equipment can disrupt reporting and expose sources. If journalists begin to believe that an uncomfortable story could bring police to their doors, self-censorship will follow.That is precisely why the Supreme Court’s order is significant. Meanwhile, the Federation of Nepali Journalists has argued that complaints over journalistic content should first be addressed through the Press Council. That cannot mean every alleged criminal offence involving a journalist must be handled only by a regulatory body. But neither should criminal law become the first response to every disputed publication.
A vibrant democracy needs a press that can question politicians, investigate institutions and expose wrongdoing without constantly looking over its shoulder. It also needs a press willing to examine its own conduct. Freedom without responsibility can damage credibility. But responsibility without freedom can become censorship.The government therefore has a larger responsibility than simply defending the legality of Shrestha’s arrest. It must demonstrate that police powers are not being used to intimidate journalists or settle political and personal disputes.Shrestha’s release does not declare the published report responsible journalism, nor does it end any legitimate investigation. What it does is draw a boundary around state power.In a democracy, the press is not supposed to make those in power comfortable. But the state is equally not supposed to make journalists afraid to write and publish any news of public significance. Nepal needs both privacy and press freedom, and the real challenge is ensuring that neither becomes a weapon against the other.
