Agreement at the Police Bureau, Questions for the Rule of Law
Editorial
Police took Kishor Shrestha, editor-in-chief of Jana Aastha weekly and a senior journalist, from his home to the Cyber Bureau. Himesh Pant, a leader of the Rastriya Swatantra Party, had filed a complaint over a report in Jana Aastha concerning his family. Shrestha had also lodged a complaint about remarks made about him on social media. After discussions, the two sides agreed that Pant could approach the Press Council if he was dissatisfied with the report and that they would refrain from posting insulting comments about each other on social media. Shrestha was then released. Police, however, said he had been called in for discussions and had not been taken into custody.
The episode cannot be reduced to a debate over whether Shrestha was “arrested” or “called in for discussions.” Taking a citizen from home to a police office, bringing the complainant face to face with him and securing an agreement there all raise questions about the use of state power. Even if police maintain that Shrestha was not detained, they must explain whether this process was necessary and why the agreement was reached at a police bureau. In a state governed by law, the police must register complaints, investigate when there is a legal basis and follow fair procedures. They should not become a body that brokers agreements between parties over media content.
The Press Council provides a channel for complaints about published material. It can assess journalistic standards, the presentation of facts, opportunities for response and correction procedures. Bypassing that process and trying to settle a dispute over a news report through the Cyber Bureau weakens the authority of the designated regulator and increases the risk of police pressure on journalists. If material provides concrete grounds to suspect a separate criminal offence, it should be investigated according to law. Dissatisfaction with a news report alone is not sufficient grounds for arrest or coercion.
Nepal’s Constitution guarantees freedom of opinion and expression and the right to communication. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also requires restrictions on expression to be prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate to their purpose. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has made clear that laws concerning reputational harm must not be used to suppress freedom of expression, and that imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty for defamation. International practice gives priority to the right of reply, correction and complaints to media regulators when disputes concern published reporting. Police action should be reserved for cases where there is a clear legal basis and a genuine need for it.
Social media and established news media operate differently. News organisations have editorial responsibility, source verification, a right-of-reply process, correction procedures and accountability under professional codes. On social media, content can spread within moments without editorial review, making it difficult to control rumours, insults and character attacks. But the platform alone does not determine legal responsibility. Sharing a news report on social media does not strip it of its journalistic character; nor does expressing an opinion on social media automatically remove legal protections. Decisions must take account of the nature, purpose and impact of the material.
Controlling misinformation and abuse on social media requires effective laws, transparent complaint procedures and accountability from platform operators. But arbitrary arrests, threats or agreements to remain silent at a police office cannot be the answer to unregulated content. Journalists, too, must not present allegations as proven facts. They have a duty to verify information, give relevant parties an opportunity to respond and correct errors. People in public office or with political influence must face scrutiny and criticism. Using police pressure to settle disagreements is incompatible with democratic practice.
The agreement between the two sides may have brought the immediate dispute to an end. But questions remain: Why did the police handle a complaint about a news report, and how voluntary was the process that brought the parties together? In a state governed by law, an agreement may be useful; it cannot replace accountability for how state power was used.
