Press Freedom and Privacy: The State’s Responsibility

The arrest of Jan Aastha Weekly editor Kishor Shrestha, the searches conducted at his residence and media office, and the protests that followed have once again brought into focus the legal boundary between press freedom and an individual’s right to privacy in Nepal. Police have initiated an investigation based on a complaint concerning an alleged violation of personal privacy, while the Federation of Nepali Journalists and other media organisations have objected to what they describe as the use of criminal investigative measures over a matter connected to news publication. This issue cannot be viewed merely as the arrest of an individual journalist. It raises a more fundamental question about how journalism, citizens’ rights and state power should interact in a democracy.

Privacy is a constitutional and legal right. Neither journalism nor freedom of expression can justify unnecessary intrusion into an individual’s private life, personal information or dignity. The media are not above the law. In publishing news, professional journalism requires careful consideration of public interest, evidence, the dignity of those concerned and the legitimate limits of privacy. Where mistakes or violations occur, accountability must follow.

Yet the other side of this principle is equally important. If arrest, searches of media offices and seizure of journalists’ equipment become routine responses whenever disputes arise over published material, the consequences for press freedom could be serious. A journalist’s computer or other device may contain far more than material related to a single disputed report. It may hold confidential source information, unpublished reporting, ongoing investigations and sensitive information involving third parties. For that reason, the state must observe not only its legal authority but also the principles of necessity and proportionality when conducting such investigations.

The Press Council has an important role in matters involving journalistic ethics, professional standards and media accountability. However, not every dispute involving publication is necessarily limited to questions of professional ethics. Where there are credible grounds to believe that an existing criminal law has been violated, competent authorities have the right to investigate. The central question, therefore, is not whether an investigation may take place, but how it is conducted. In a democratic system, the state possesses significant coercive power, and precisely for that reason its use must be restrained, transparent and accountable.

Arrest should not become the easiest investigative option in cases involving journalists. If evidence can be preserved, statements obtained and facts verified through measures that do not require detention, such alternatives should receive priority. Custody should be used only when genuinely necessary for an investigation, not as an instrument of pressure. In matters involving expression and publication, authorities must also consider whether their actions could create a chilling effect among other journalists and media institutions.

At the same time, the media community must not treat the defence of press freedom as a reason to diminish the importance of citizens’ privacy. The credibility of independent journalism is built not only through the assertion of rights but also through the responsible exercise of those rights. Every editorial decision should therefore ask whether publication serves a legitimate public interest or merely exposes an individual’s private life without sufficient justification.

In the Kishor Shrestha case, the investigation should proceed impartially, but it must not become a pretext for unnecessary intrusion into journalistic sources, unpublished material or editorial independence. If there is no clear and compelling basis for continued detention, the investigation should proceed through appropriate alternative legal mechanisms. The democratic balance lies in ensuring that the state protects privacy without constraining press freedom, while the media exercise press freedom without violating legitimate privacy rights.

Ultimately, democracy is tested when fundamental rights come into tension. Protecting one right by effectively extinguishing another is not a solution. The principal lesson from this case should be the need to establish legal and institutional practices that protect both press freedom and personal privacy with equal seriousness.