In a rare move, the Supreme Court has launched a suo moto contempt of court case against the publisher and the editor of sidhakura.com, a Kathmandu-based news website, for allegedly publishing defamatory content against one of its justices.

Govinda Ghimire, a deputy registrar at the top court, filed the writ petition claiming that serious fabricated and illusionary audiovisual content published by the website was a malicious attempt to defame the judiciary. Thus it is a contempt of court, Ghimire has claimed.

“The series of illusionary content uploaded by the online is an attempt to tarnish the judiciary’s image and an attack on judicial integrity,” reads a part of the petition. It has demanded a maximum punishment against Yubraj Kandel and Nabin Dhungana, the publisher and the editor of the website, respectively, and against their team members.

The petition was filed as per Article 128(4) of the Constitution of Nepal, section 17(1) of the Judicial Administration Act and Supreme Court regulations.

In case anyone causes obstruction in the dispensation of justice or disregards any order or judgment handed down by it or any of its subordinate courts, the court may, in accordance with the law, initiate proceedings of contempt, says the constitutional provision.

Similarly, the Act allows the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings if it finds anything that is posing hurdles to discharging its duties.

The news website in its audiovisual content has claimed that the chairpersons of two leading media houses were a part of a meeting with the incumbent and former Supreme Court justices and senior advocates to dismiss over 400 corruption cases in the court.

The content, which the online claims is based on a sting operation, is nothing but a malicious move intended to defame the judiciary, the petitioner has claimed.

The petitioner has demanded an order for immediate removal of the content from YouTube and other social media, and summoning the individuals involved in the production and dissemination of the defamatory content for their statements, to ensure that such acts do not recur.

Stating that production and publication of such content is a criminal offence, the petitioner has also sought an order against relevant government agencies for investigation into the content and regular reporting to the court. The hearing of the petition has been slated for Monday.

“Launching suo moto cases is a standard practice in the judiciary worldwide although it is not very common here,” senior advocate Dinesh Tripathi, a former chairperson of the Constitutional Lawyers’ Forum, told the Post. “The Supreme Court has rightly initiated the case since its senior justice has been accused in the so-called sting operation.”

Amid criticism over the content, the Press Council on Friday had directed the news website to take down the ‘malicious and fabricated’ content and present a written clarification for broadcasting it. But its management refused to abide by the directive. It instead published another episode on Saturday.

The move of the news website has been condemned by the media and civil society organisations. The Nepal Media Society on Saturday condemned the content saying it was published with a malicious intent to defame members of the media and the judiciary and demanded immediate action against those involved.

The umbrella body of Nepal-based media organisations had called the video a condemnable attempt to attack the democratic system, media and judiciary without any basis and demanded that relevant authorities take action against all those involved in the act. It had also claimed that such irresponsible and ‘propaganda mills’ cannot be considered media.

“There has been a rising trend of misusing technology to attack democratic systems and independent media and the judiciary, motivated by blind public support, worldwide,” read a statement issued by Shuva Shankar Kandel, chair of the society. “The latest incident is a similar attempt by some YouTube channels that are producing tasteless ‘fake news’, which is a serious issue.”

Earlier, senior advocate Hari Prasad Upreti and advocate Kishor Bista also issued a joint statement denying the allegations levelled against them in the audio clip. The content in question and its publication is misleading and we believe that this is a deliberate attack on the judiciary and the media, they said. “We vehemently oppose anyone who shares and defends such content on social media.”

Supreme Court Justice Ananda Mohan Bhattarai, who is named in the clip, objected to the content saying that it was motivated by the intent of spreading disbelief not only against the media houses and individuals but also against professional journalism and the judiciary as a whole.

“I am shocked and surprised that my name has been linked with the news published by ‘Sidha Kura.’ My career, spanning almost 43 years, is an open book,” Bhattarai said.

Kantipur Media Group chairperson Kailash Sirohiya and Rameshwar Thapa, chairman of the Annapurna Media Network, who are also accused of being involved in the case, had filed separate complaints at the Press Council arguing that the online portal had attempted to undermine the pillars of the democratic system, therefore, needs to be investigated and held accountable for its action.

Meanwhile, the council has ordered the editor and presenter of sidhakura.com to appear before the council’s office at Tilganga, Kathmandu by 3 pm on Monday along with evidence to substantiate the accusations made in the disputed content published by them.