{"id":22851,"date":"2026-08-15T10:28:21","date_gmt":"2026-08-15T04:43:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=22851"},"modified":"2026-08-15T10:28:21","modified_gmt":"2026-08-15T04:43:21","slug":"two-classmates-two-roles-the-kishor-shrestha-case-and-the-test-of-police-impartiality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=22851","title":{"rendered":"Two Classmates, Two Roles: The Kishor Shrestha Case and the Test of Police Impartiality<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

# Lucky Chand <\/strong><\/p>\n

Journalist Kishor Shrestha is in police custody. Nepal Police is currently headed by Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki. The fact that Karki and Shrestha are understood to have studied together as classmates adds an unusual layer of sensitivity to the case. But this is not fundamentally a story about two old acquaintances. The central question is whether an investigation involving a person who has a prior personal relationship with the police chief is merely impartial, or whether it must also be conducted in a manner that visibly demonstrates impartiality.<\/p>\n

Personal relationships cannot obstruct the enforcement of law. No one should be exempted from investigation merely because they are a classmate, friend or acquaintance of a senior official. At the same time, where such a relationship exists, the chain of command, decision-making process and evidence-gathering procedures should be more transparent and carefully documented in order to protect institutional credibility.<\/p>\n

The investigation into Shrestha began with a complaint concerning alleged violation of personal privacy. Police arrested him and also searched his residence and premises associated with Jana Aastha, seizing mobile phones, laptops, computers and other electronic devices. From that point, the case raised a broader constitutional question: how far may the state go into seized digital devices while investigating an allegation connected to a specific news report?<\/p>\n

A modern mobile phone or laptop is not an ordinary physical object. It may contain years of personal correspondence, emails, photographs, videos, contact lists, location data, social media records, professional documents and access to cloud accounts. In the case of a journalist, the sensitivity is even greater because such devices may contain not only personal information but also the identities and communications of confidential sources.<\/p>\n

Those sources may include government employees, security officials, political leaders, business figures, diplomats or individuals providing sensitive information in the public interest. Opening an entire digital device therefore does not affect only the privacy of the accused. It can also expose the confidential communications of numerous third parties who have no connection with the investigation.<\/p>\n

For that reason, the case should not be framed as a simple conflict between press freedom and criminal investigation. Both can be protected.<\/p>\n

If investigators need to determine where material used in a disputed report came from, how it was obtained or how it was published, relevant digital evidence can be examined. But the purpose and scope of such examination should be clearly defined.<\/p>\n

Which device is to be examined? What time period is relevant? Which files, accounts or communications are directly connected to the allegation? What exactly are investigators authorized to search for? And how will unrelated material discovered during forensic examination be protected from use?<\/p>\n

Without clear answers to these questions, unrestricted access to an entire device risks making the scope of an investigation indefinite.<\/p>\n

Another sensitive issue concerns the leadership of Nepal Police. The fact that Karki and Shrestha have a prior relationship as former classmates does not, by itself, establish that the Inspector General has interfered in the investigation. It would be unfair to draw such a conclusion without evidence. But principles of good governance require not only actual impartiality but also procedures that make impartiality visible.<\/p>\n

It would therefore strengthen the credibility of Nepal Police if it were clear whether the Inspector General is separated from day-to-day decisions in the case, who directly commands the investigation, at what level the search and seizure decisions were made, and who authorized any digital forensic examination.<\/p>\n

Such transparency should not be interpreted as distrust of the police. Rather, it is a mechanism for protecting the institution from allegations of personal influence, conflict of interest or improper intervention. If the investigation is proceeding through regular professional procedures and a normal chain of command, documenting that process should serve the interests of the investigating authority itself.<\/p>\n

The safest and most credible approach to the seized digital devices is independent judicial oversight.<\/p>\n

The devices should be preserved securely. Appropriate forensic procedures should ensure that evidence is not destroyed, altered or manipulated. If necessary, technical copies may be made in a manner that preserves the integrity of the data.<\/p>\n

But before investigators examine the substantive contents of those devices, they should be required to explain to a court the purpose, necessity and scope of the proposed access.<\/p>\n

A court could authorize access to a particular device, a defined period, specified communications or digital material directly connected to the allegation. This would not obstruct the investigation. On the contrary, it would strengthen the legal reliability of the evidence collected.<\/p>\n

The basic principle is simple: investigators should know in advance what they are looking for.<\/p>\n

It should not become normal practice to open an entire phone or computer on the basis of one complaint and then search for unrelated matters that might support additional allegations. Such a practice risks reversing the proper sequence of criminal investigation. The state should first establish a reasonable basis for a suspected offence and then search for evidence related to that offence, not open a person\u2019s entire digital life and then search for possible crimes.<\/p>\n

Shrestha cannot claim immunity from law merely because he is a journalist. The allegations against him must be examined through evidence and due process. The privacy rights of the complainant must also be respected.<\/p>\n

But the constitutional rights of an accused person do not disappear upon arrest.<\/p>\n

There is also an important irony in this case: the investigation itself concerns privacy. When the state investigates an alleged violation of someone\u2019s privacy, it bears an even greater responsibility to ensure that the privacy of the accused and unrelated third parties is not unnecessarily violated in the process.<\/p>\n

This is where press freedom becomes relevant.<\/p>\n

Protection of journalistic sources is not a personal privilege granted to journalists. It is part of the wider public interest in ensuring that citizens can safely provide information to the media.<\/p>\n

If a practice develops in which a single complaint against a journalist allows the state to access years of communications, future sources may hesitate before speaking. A government employee exposing irregularities, a security official identifying institutional weaknesses or a citizen sharing documents of public importance may fear that their identity could later be uncovered through forensic examination of a journalist\u2019s device.<\/p>\n

Limiting digital searches to what is proportionate and directly connected to the allegation is therefore not only in the interest of the accused journalist. It is also a matter of press freedom and broader public interest.<\/p>\n

Judicial oversight would also protect the police.<\/p>\n

Evidence obtained through forensic examination conducted within a court-defined scope is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny. It also reduces the possibility of investigators being accused of searching for unrelated information for personal or political purposes. Police leadership, too, would gain institutional protection from allegations that a prior personal relationship affected the investigation.<\/p>\n

The Kishor Shrestha case therefore presents Nepal with an opportunity to establish an important precedent.<\/p>\n

Where an accused person has a prior personal relationship with police leadership or those connected to the investigative structure, decision-making should be more transparent and carefully documented. When digital devices belonging to journalists are seized, source confidentiality should be treated as a particularly sensitive issue. Broad forensic examination should require judicial authorization that clearly defines purpose and scope. And material unrelated to the investigation should be protected from use, copying or disclosure.<\/p>\n

None of these safeguards would obstruct a legitimate criminal investigation. Rather, they would place the state\u2019s investigative authority within clear legal boundaries and strengthen institutional credibility.<\/p>\n

Whether Kishor Shrestha is guilty or innocent is for the court to determine on the basis of evidence. Likewise, without evidence, it would be improper to conclude that Inspector General Dan Bahadur Karki has personally influenced the investigation. But ignoring the questions of impartiality raised by their prior relationship would not serve the interests of the police institution either.<\/p>\n

The proper resolution of this case is not to protect one person or condemn another. It is to ensure a process in which the complainant\u2019s right to justice, the accused\u2019s privacy, the protection of journalistic sources and the lawful investigative authority of the police are all preserved.<\/p>\n

The seized digital devices have therefore become the most important test in this case.<\/p>\n

They may contain evidence. But they should not become an unlimited gateway into the journalist\u2019s entire personal and professional life.<\/p>\n

If further forensic examination is necessary, investigators should first explain its purpose, necessity and scope before a court and proceed only within the authorized limits.<\/p>\n

That would not grant Kishor Shrestha special treatment. Nor would it imply wrongdoing by Dan Bahadur Karki.<\/p>\n

Rather, in the unusual circumstance of two former classmates now standing in different institutional roles, one leading the police and the other under investigation as a journalist, such safeguards may be the strongest way for Nepal Police not only to remain impartial, but to demonstrate that impartiality in a publicly credible manner.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t