KATHMANDU, May 7: The Supreme Court (SC) has directed the individual who provided the audio, as well as the editors and publishers of SidhaKura.com who aired the audio, to appear in court when needed.
A joint bench of Justices Hari Prasad Phuyal and Mahesh Sharma Paudel ordered Rajkumar Timilsina (who provided the audio to SidhaKura), Editor Nabin Dhungana and Publisher Yuvraj Kandel on Monday to appear at the court when needed. At the same time, it has ordered those whose names are mentioned in the audio material to send a copy of the report and their statements in writing within seven days.
Annapurna Post Chairman Rameshwar Thapa, Kantipur Media Group Chairman Kailash Sirohiya, Senior Advocate Hari Prasad Uprety, Advocate Kishor Kumar Bishta, Journalist Surendra Kafle and the then SP Sanjay Thapa are among those mentioned in the audio.
Ths SC orders Rajkumar Timilsina to submit the original device from which he recorded the controversial content, along with the email which Timilsina sent to Journalist Kafle.
Books for the visually impaired
Giving priority to the case, the SC has scheduled the hearing on May 17. On April 26, a media outlet named 'SidhaKura' uploaded and broadcast a secret audio serially from YouTube and other social networks under the title of ‘Exclusive Sting Operation: Secret deal to dismiss more than 400 cases, involvement of Supreme Court justices and owners of Kantipur and Annapurna dailies.’
Earlier, the SC had ordered SidhaKura to remove the controversial content within 24 hours. SidhaKura removed the content and said that it would stop broadcasting the controversial content even before it received the court’s order in writing.
The SC has already ordered a detailed investigation into the matter, including technical aspects. It has instructed the Inspector General of Police to take action according to the law if violations of criminal law are found after the necessary investigation.
While Article 17(2) (a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression to every citizen, Article 19 ensures the media's right to communicate and publish audio-visual content. However, the court has previously emphasized that such rights should not violate public decency, morality, or contempt of court.
It was mentioned in the previous order that the freedom of expression of an individual is not absolute in nature. "When publishing news articles or textual material related to the court, it is seen as contempt of the court if the publication of unverified, untrue, misleading and unsubstantiated news publications harms the dignity of the court," said the order.
The court stated that freedom of expression should adhere to minimum standards of professional ethics to avoid contempt of court. The SC has asserted that judges who were not on the bench and legal practitioners who did not engage in debates had been accused in connection with the verdict of the Constitutional Bench on the case on April 21, 2021.
The SC mentioned procedural inconsistencies in the writ petition under review, such as changing the testimony of government witnesses, which appear to be prima facie erroneous. The court believes that the broadcast content has caused confusion and disinterest in the entire justice system.
It has been said that the content was allegedly produced and broadcast in a deliberate manner to undermine the court's dignity and impede its work.
Last Sunday, a contempt case was filed at the Supreme Court against the YouTube channel "SidhaKura" for contempt of court. Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, Govinda Prasad Ghimire, filed a petition claiming that broadcasting misleading content to discredit the judiciary constitutes contempt of court.
