{"id":23108,"date":"2026-08-18T07:51:56","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T02:06:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=23108"},"modified":"2026-08-18T07:51:56","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T02:06:56","slug":"complaint-over-news-content-clear-process-must-come-before-arrest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=23108","title":{"rendered":"Complaint Over News Content: Clear Process Must Come Before Arrest<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

The arrest of journalist Kishor Shrestha, followed by another police complaint against him over separate published material, has once again brought the boundaries between press freedom, personal privacy and criminal investigation into serious debate in Nepal. This debate should not be reduced to support for or opposition to one journalist, one media organisation or one complainant. The central question is how the state should respond to disputes arising from media content.<\/p>\n

Media organisations are not above the law. If a publication violates an individual\u2019s privacy, reputation or legal rights, the affected person must have access to an effective remedy. Public office-holders do not lose their rights to private life and human dignity. Likewise, if threats, coercion, unlawful digital access or other clearly criminal acts are committed under the cover of journalism, police investigation is legitimate.<\/p>\n

But arrest, detention, searches of homes and offices, and seizure of digital devices should not become routine responses merely because someone objects to material published by a legally operating media outlet. When the state uses coercive powers beyond what is necessary, the impact extends beyond one journalist. It can affect editorial independence, protection of journalistic sources and, ultimately, the public\u2019s right to information.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s intervention in the Kishor Shrestha case drew an important distinction. The Court did not automatically declare the initial arrest unlawful, nor did it stop the investigation. But it made clear that the existence of an investigation does not automatically justify detention. Where an inquiry can proceed through bail, reporting requirements or other less restrictive measures, continued custody should not be treated as necessary.<\/p>\n

This raises a broader institutional question. When a dispute concerns factual accuracy, balance, headlines, right of reply or editorial ethics, should the first door be the police or a body such as the Press Council? When serious claims involving privacy or reputation arise, how effective are civil and judicial remedies? And in the absence of a clear criminal element, why should arrest become the first option?<\/p>\n

Nepal now needs a clear Media Content Complaint Protocol rather than reinventing the response after every new case. Complaints should first be classified according to their nature. Disputes over journalistic ethics should generally go through the Press Council or a credible self-regulatory mechanism. Privacy and reputational complaints should be assessed against truth, public interest and the circumstances of publication. Full criminal investigation should be activated where there is a genuine and independently identifiable criminal act.<\/p>\n

Special caution is also required when digital devices are seized. A journalist\u2019s phone or computer may contain far more than the disputed article. It may include confidential sources, unpublished investigations and sensitive information belonging to third parties. Where searches are genuinely necessary, their scope should be limited, judicially authorised and proportionate to the investigation.<\/p>\n

The media sector must also examine its own responsibilities. Public curiosity and public interest are not the same thing. The fact that a person is prominent or holds public office does not make every aspect of private life legitimate news. Fact-checking, a sufficient evidentiary basis, an opportunity to respond and respect for privacy remain essential elements of responsible journalism.<\/p>\n

Nepal does not have to choose between press freedom and privacy. Both must be protected. The police should not be weakened, but their role should be clearly defined. The Press Council should not remain ineffective, but neither should it become another centre of control. Courts must continue to scrutinise the boundary between fundamental rights and coercive state power.<\/p>\n

The most important lesson from the Kishor Shrestha case is therefore straightforward. When a complaint arises over published content, the state\u2019s first question should not be, \u201cWhom should we arrest?\u201d It should be, \u201cWhat is the nature of the dispute, and what is the appropriate legal remedy?\u201d<\/p>\n

Only a clear and proportionate process can protect individual dignity, preserve a free press and strengthen public confidence in the rule of law.<\/p>\n

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