Do not attack on judiciary and independent media

Every right comes with a reasonable restriction. If right goes without restriction, there would be chaos in society. In this context, the right to free speech is considered the mother of all freedoms since it has a special and crucial place in the hierarchy of freedoms. The right to think and speak freely, as well as to receive information and to participate in open discussions without fear of government restriction, could be considered the core of free speech. The freedom to converse on an issue is the opportunity to speak freely.

However, the right to speech does not give license to defame or harm others. Recently, a media outlet got a directive from the Press Council Nepal to remove a piece of fake news claiming the involvement of Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai, lawyers and media entrepreneurs to dismiss more than 400 corruption cases. Issuing a press statement on April 28, Judges’ Society Nepal demanded stern action against Sidhakura, the show in question, for broadcasting the ‘news’ without checking the facts, thereby attacking not just a judge but the judicial system as a whole. Relevant agencies of the state have initiated legal proceedings against the media.

Against this background, let’s delve into freedom of speech. 

Constitutional scenario

The Constitution of Nepal 2015 prohibits the enactment of any law and order at the cost of fundamental freedoms and constitutional values. Article 1 declares any law, which is inconsistent with the constitution, ‘void’, meaning that the fundamental freedoms, which include freedom of speech and expression, cannot be curtailed in the name of any law.

Article 16 states that every person will have the right to life with dignity. Article 17(1) guarantees the right to freedom, including personal liberty. Article 17(2) guarantees fundamental freedoms, like freedom of opinion and expression; freedom to assemble peacefully; freedom to form political parties; freedom to form unions and associations; freedom to move and reside in any part of the country; and freedom to engage in any occupation.However, these freedoms are not unrestrained. As with every right, the right to speech and expression also come with reasonable restrictions. A citizen cannot exercise his freedom of speech in a way that undermines the nationality and sovereignty or jeopardizes the harmonious relations among the people, incites hatred, defamation, offense or is contrary to decency or morality or public order.

This way, a person can voice his concerns in every way, and the way he wishes to but cannot defame or challenge other’s dignity or the law of the land. Simply put, you can enjoy your rights without violating others’ rights. Article 19 deals with the right to communication. This clause prohibits pre-censorships of publication and broadcast of content or information through any medium. This means broadcasting or press materials cannot be seized at the sweet will of the government.

The constitution disallows untouchability and discrimination and prohibits them under Article 24. This means one is not competent to shape his views discriminating against his fellow citizens or members of the family. Article 27 envisages that every citizen will have the right to information. Right to speak or right to know is considered part and parcel of speech and expression and the same is the case with right to privacy (Article 28), which guarantees a person’s right over personal facts, leaving it up to the individual to decide when and under what circumstances to make them public. 

Remedy

The constitution provides remedy clauses that confer a citizen the right to move the Supreme Court (under Article 133) and High Court (under Article 144) at the instance of violation of his/her fundamental rights.

Judicial interpretation 

The Supreme Court in the case of Advocate Ratna Kumari Shrestha v Sudhir Sharma, editor-in-chief of Kantipur daily and others (2073 BS NKP, Decision Number 10370) held, in the name of the exercise of press freedom, it would not be justified to allow one to affect the dignity, independence and functioning of the courts. Nor, would it be in the interest of a democratic system to regulate press freedom at the cost of contempt of court. Both of these institutions—press and judiciary—should have to stand within their limits. If there is dissemination of information in such a way that it would tend to diminish the authority of the court, judges or cause contempt of court, then it would not be considered an exercise of the freedom of the press, rather it would form a basis for punishing an outlier on the charge of contempt of court. In the name of freedom of speech and expression, a media has no right to arbitrarily criticize the court’s decisions and thereby adversely affect the dignity of the court which would have an impact on the people’s faith in the judiciary. A media will be liable for contempt of court if it disseminates information to downgrade the authority and sanctity of the court and judgeship, the apex court held further.

In Thir Prasad Pokharel v Harihar Birahi, editor of Bimarsha Prakashan Pvt Ltd (2049 BS NKP, Decision Number 4604), the apex court held that Nepal’s constitutional norm and values are clear on a point that there shall be no pre-censorship, neither cancellation of registration of the newspaper, nor shall there be any shutdown or confiscation of printing press.

Global precedents

In India, the preamble of the Indian Constitution at the very outset clarifies that the democratic credentials, like liberty of thought, expression and belief; justice along the social, economic and political; or equality and fraternity, would be secured and promoted by the governments. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

The laws in the USA not only recognize the right to fly the national flag but it has gone to the extent of holding flag burning as an expression of free speech and expression of its citizen against the establishment but Indian constitution does not approve the latter part of the right, India’s apex Court ruled in the case of Union of India v Naveen Jindal (2004). 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that the Congress shall create no law abridging the liberty of words or of the press.  In the 19th century, Germany guaranteed freedom of opinion in its Constitution with an express prohibition of press censors.

Interestingly, Sweden became the first country in the world to adopt a provision for the availability of official information for the citizens on their demand. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The way forward

The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.  It expressly guarantees the right to voice our concerns through speech, expression or vote. Yet, it does not confer a license to defame others or violate the laws of the land. So, the freedom of speech is neither unrestrained, nor does it allow us to question the sanctity and integrity of others.

Publishing a fake news content to defame persons of high moral character or to post comments on social media to defame others or to speak in a way that tends to undermine the authority and sanctity of judicial institutions cannot be considered part and parcel of freedom of speech. It's high time to protect and promote the constitutional ethos, for Nepal deserves to uphold the press freedom by every possible means and in every given way.