Nepal: The Supreme Court has concluded that the audiovisual content published on sidhakura.com, a Kathmandu-based news website, is prima facie a malicious attempt to defame the judiciary, obstruct the judicial proceedings and scandalise the court.
photo: TKP
A division bench of justices Nahakul Subedi
and Tek Prasad Dhungana has said the justice named in the media content
referring to the April 21, 2021 verdict of the Constitutional Bench was not
part of the bench nor did the advocates named have any link with the case.
The website on Friday aired the content
claiming that the chairpersons of two leading media houses were part of a
meeting with the incumbent and former Supreme Court justices and senior
advocates to dismiss over 400 corruption cases in the court.
The April 21, 2021 verdict was part of the
deal, it had claimed. However, the court has found the claim to be baseless.
The court on Sunday had launched a suo moto
contempt of court case against the publisher and the editor of the website for
publishing defamatory contents against one of its justices.
Govinda Ghimire, a deputy registrar at the
top court, filed the writ petition claiming that “serious, fabricated and
misleading audiovisual content published by the website was a malicious attempt
to defame the judiciary.”
After a hearing on Monday, the top court has
directed Yubraj Kandel, publisher of the website, and Nabin Dhungana, its
editor, to be present at the court on Thursday with evidence to substantiate
their reports and to answer why they shouldn’t be booked for contempt of court.
The petition has demanded a maximum punishment against Kandel and Dhungana and
their team members.
A person found guilty of contempt of court is
liable to a year in jail or Rs10,000 fine or both as per the Judicial
Administration Act.
The division bench has also ordered removal
of the audiovisual content, which was first uploaded on Friday, and its
follow-up reports within 24 hours and ensure that no new content related to the
issue is produced, aired, or republished until the final verdict in the
petition.
The news website took down all the related
content on Monday, hours before the order from the apex court. All the content
has been withheld due to an ongoing investigation in line with a letter from
the Press Council Nepal, the news website said.
“As the content was published with a
malicious intent, other media outlets are ordered not to publish or broadcast
the content produced by the defendants,” reads the order. It has also directed
the Press Council and the Federation of Nepali Journalists to ensure that the
order is implemented.
The court has also ordered Nepal Police to
investigate the factual and technical aspects of the audio-visual materials
(forensic test) within 15 days, and if it is found that the prevailing criminal
law has been violated, to proceed with legal action and submit a report to the
court. The police must test the authenticity of the audio-visual materials
within two weeks and lodge a case of criminal offence. Contempt of court is a
criminal offence.
Stating that freedom of opinion and
expression and broadcasting of audiovisual content are constitutional rights,
the constitution also envisions that these rights can be exercised only by
respecting public etiquette and ensuring that such exercise does not lead to
contempt of court. “The right to opinion and expression is not an absolute
right,” reads the court’s ruling.
The petition was filed as per Article 128(4)
of the Constitution of Nepal, section 17(1) of the Judicial Administration Act
and Supreme Court regulations.
In case anyone causes obstruction in the
dispensation of justice or disregards any order or judgment handed down by it
or any of its subordinate courts, the court may, in accordance with the law,
initiate proceedings of contempt, says the constitutional provision.
Similarly, the Act allows the court to
initiate contempt of court proceedings if it finds anything that is posing
hurdles to discharging its duties.
Meanwhile, the Commission for the
Investigation of Abuse of Authority has requested the agencies concerned to
investigate and take action against the website for publishing misleading
content.
Issuing a statement, the anti-graft body said
its attention has been drawn to the news published on the website.
“The commission is seriously concerned about the
mention, in the [audio-visual] material, of the commission and that a member of
a sting operation team of the commission would be asked to change his
statement,” said Narahari Ghimire, CIAA spokesperson in a statement.
“The commission is not involved in any
activities other than carrying out actions as per the verdict issued by the
constitutional bench of the Supreme Court and investigating and prosecuting
complaints within its jurisdiction,” said CIAA. “The commission requests the
relevant agencies to investigate and take action for publishing the misleading
content as per the law.”
0 Comments