The new criminal code and the proposed legislation on protection of rights to privacy pose a grave risk to press freedom and freedom of expression in Nepal. Article 17 of the new constitution guarantees every individual freedom of expression and opinion. Likewise, Article 19 says that no punitive action can be taken against a media house for “publishing, broadcasting or printing any news item, feature, editorial, article, information or other material”. Yet some provisions in the new code and legislation seem intended to take away these constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms and to reduce transparency and accountability of public office-holders. For instance the new code makes it a criminal offense to listen to or record a conversation between two people or to photograph people without their consent. The violator of this provision will be liable for a year of jail and/or Rs 10,000. Likewise, the proposed bill says the educational qualification, criminal background, character and political affiliation of public office-holders cannot be scrutinized without express consent. The violators of this law will get three years of jail and/or be fined Rs 30,000.
The government says that such a law had become vital to protect every person’s right to privacy under Article 27 of the constitution. But as the citations of the new constitution above suggest, the exaggerated concern on privacy, and neglect of other freedoms, is not in keeping with the spirit of the new constitution.
The new provisions will make it impossible for journalists to write critically about the functioning of public office-bearers and to do investigative stories. This in a country consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt and lawless.
But the drafters and enforcers of these laws stoutly defend them. “I think the curbs on press freedom and freedom of expression have been exaggerated,” says Radheshyam Adhikari, a member of the National Assembly, the federal upper house. “Reading the newspapers you feel that media personnel think they will be swiftly jailed for writing a critical report about the government. That is not the case.”
The offense has to be first established in a court of law, Adhikari points out. “So far as investigative journalism is concerned, you do it at personal risk. But if the journalist in question is honest and somehow manages to establish the truth in public, then he or she has nothing to fear. Look at what happened with Watergate!”
