The Supreme Court has concluded that the audiovisual content published on sidhakura.com, a Kathmandu-based news website, is prima facie a malicious attempt to defame the judiciary, obstruct the judicial proceedings and scandalise the court.

A division bench of justices Nahakul Subedi and Tek Prasad Dhungana has said the justice named in the media content referring to the April 21, 2021 verdict of the Constitutional Bench was not part of the bench nor did the advocates named have any link with the case.

The website on Friday aired the content claiming that the chairpersons of two leading media houses were 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 April 21, 2021 verdict was part of the deal, it had claimed. However, the court has found the claim to be baseless.

The court on Sunday had launched a suo moto contempt of court case against the publisher and the editor of the website for publishing defamatory contents against one of its justices. Govinda Ghimire, a deputy registrar at the top court, filed the writ petition claiming that “serious, fabricated and misleading audiovisual content published by the website was a malicious attempt to defame the judiciary.”

After a hearing on Monday, the top court has directed Yubraj Kandel, publisher of the website, and Nabin Dhungana, its editor, to be present at the court on Thursday with evidence to substantiate their reports and to answer why they shouldn’t be booked for contempt of court. The petition has demanded a maximum punishment against Kandel and Dhungana and their team members.

A person found guilty of contempt of court is liable to a year in jail or Rs10,000 fine or both as per the Judicial Administration Act.

The division bench has also ordered removal of the audiovisual content, which was first uploaded on Friday, and its follow-up reports within 24 hours and ensure that no new content related to the issue is produced, aired, or republished until the final verdict in the petition.

The news website took down all the related content on Monday, hours before the order from the apex court. All the content has been withheld due to an ongoing investigation in line with a letter from the Press Council Nepal, the news website said.

“As the content was published with a malicious intent, other media outlets are ordered not to publish or broadcast the content produced by the defendants,” reads the order. It has also directed the Press Council and the Federation of Nepali Journalists to ensure that the order is implemented.

The court has also ordered Nepal Police to investigate the factual and technical aspects of the audio-visual materials (forensic test) within 15 days, and if it is found that the prevailing criminal law has been violated, to proceed with legal action and submit a report to the court. The police must test the authenticity of the audio-visual materials within two weeks and lodge a case of criminal offence. Contempt of court is a criminal offence.

Stating that freedom of opinion and expression and broadcasting of audiovisual content are constitutional rights, the constitution also envisions that these rights can be exercised only by respecting public etiquette and ensuring that such exercise does not lead to contempt of court. “The right to opinion and expression is not an absolute right,” reads the court’s ruling.

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.

Meanwhile, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority has requested the agencies concerned to investigate and take action against the website for publishing misleading content.

Issuing a statement, the anti-graft body said its attention has been drawn to the news published on the website.

“The commission is seriously concerned about the mention, in the [audio-visual] material, of the commission and that a member of a sting operation team of the commission would be asked to change his statement,” said Narahari Ghimire, CIAA spokesperson in a statement.

“The commission is not involved in any activities other than carrying out actions as per the verdict issued by the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court and investigating and prosecuting complaints within its jurisdiction,” said CIAA. “The commission requests the relevant agencies to investigate and take action for publishing the misleading content as per the law.”