{"id":26954,"date":"2026-10-08T07:12:27","date_gmt":"2026-10-08T01:27:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26954"},"modified":"2026-10-08T07:12:27","modified_gmt":"2026-10-08T01:27:27","slug":"the-law-must-apply-to-all-and-its-procedures-must-be-equal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26954","title":{"rendered":"The Law Must Apply to All, and Its Procedures Must Be Equal<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Investigating crime is a lawful responsibility of the state. No one should be exempt from the law because of office, influence or political connections. But the state has no licence to use arrests, detention or searches as instruments of pressure or display. Recent public reports of arrests, detentions and searches of homes have raised serious questions about where that boundary lies.<\/p>\n

An arrest does not prove guilt. Treating someone required to assist an investigation as a criminal, presenting an allegation as a verdict, or applying pressure through public statements weakens the foundations of justice. If an investigation is necessary, its reasons, legal basis and procedures should be clear. Seized materials should be recorded, the person concerned should have access to legal counsel, and the justification for the investigation should remain open to judicial scrutiny.<\/p>\n

The impartiality of the law must be evident not only when the government acts against its critics or opponents, but also when questions arise about people close to those in power. The same standards must apply to political leaders, civil servants, journalists, businesspeople and ordinary citizens. Public confidence in investigations declines when their pace and severity appear to vary according to a person\u2019s political identity. The government should therefore focus less on whom it has arrested and more on how evidence was gathered, what safeguards were in place against abuse, and what conclusions the investigation reached.<\/p>\n

Complaints against journalists or analysts may be investigated. But making news reports, commentary or criticism an easy route to criminal investigation poses a risk to freedom of expression. If content is alleged to have violated the law, that allegation should be examined through established procedures. Criticising the government is not a crime; legal accountability applies only when an offence is proven. Maintaining this distinction is a test of democratic governance.<\/p>\n

Impartiality and transparency are also essential in investigations involving money laundering or corruption. If a search is necessary, its basis and scope should be clear. Family members or relatives should not be unnecessarily drawn into public accusations in the name of an investigation. The state may gather evidence, but it must not create an atmosphere in which a person is pronounced guilty before the evidence is made public.<\/p>\n

The government should address public concern by disclosing the legal basis and procedural details of these cases. Parliament, the courts, human rights bodies and the media should also monitor the fairness of the process without interfering in investigations. The credibility of the rule of law is established not by the number of arrests, but by evidence that the law is applied equally to everyone. A government\u2019s strength does not lie in appearing powerful; the real strength of democracy lies in keeping power within the bounds of the law.<\/p>\n

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