Continue with Google
The short-term interim order issued by the Kathmandu District Court, directing two online news portals to immediately remove published news articles, has caused significant concern within Nepal’s media fraternity. Particularly troubling is that the order was issued prior to hearing the response of the defendants—a move that appears, at first glance, to contradict the basic principles of natural justice. On Tuesday, the court directed two online news portals to immediately take down news stories concerning the Chairperson of the Securities Board of Nepal. It also ordered the portals to submit a written response within 15 days. In a related case, an arrest warrant has reportedly been issued against journalist Dil Bhushan Pathak over a news broadcast. These developments have further alarmed media stakeholders, raising questions about due process and press freedom.
“Press Council has attacked press freedom and journalists' righ...
In democratic societies, matters related to media content are typically addressed first through a media oversight body—such as the Press Council Nepal—before involving law enforcement agencies or the courts. Nepal, too, has a functioning Press Council with a mandate to uphold journalistic standards and mediate such disputes. In this instance, it would have been far more appropriate for the Press Council Nepal to have taken the lead. Instead, what should have been its role has seemingly been overtaken by the police and judiciary—an unfortunate precedent with far-reaching implications for press freedom. Court orders and administrative actions such as arrests or takedown directives should be measures of last resort. Established practice usually calls for the concerned media outlet to be given the opportunity to clarify, issue rebuttals, or offer an apology if necessary. Only when such remedies fail should legal proceedings be initiated. While the court’s interim order may appear harsh, we can hope that the final verdict will uphold press freedom and constitutional values. Legal experts and the media community should seize this moment to foster a reasoned, academic dialogue on the boundaries of press freedom and responsibility.
That said, media organisations, too, must operate within the framework of existing laws, journalistic codes of conduct and societal norms. Journalism that undermines the dignity or reputation of individuals runs counter to its very principles. Even in the pursuit of truth, restraint, accuracy, and fairness are essential. At the same time, excessive self-censorship—or actions that suppress legitimate journalism under pressure—pose an equal threat to the core values of the profession. The journalist's duty to uncover and disseminate truth, even at personal or institutional risk, remains central to a free press. Truth must never be colored by greed, fear, revenge or emotion. If this case sets a precedent where media content can be taken down without even hearing the other side, it risks turning Nepal’s constitutionally guaranteed press freedom into an empty promise. It is therefore imperative for the Press Council Nepal, along with the Federation of Nepali Journalists to take the matter seriously and act to uphold media-judiciary trust. Just as the judiciary is vital to protecting press freedom, an independent press is equally critical in upholding the integrity of the judiciary.
