SC sentences all involved in ‘Dark File’ contempt case to jail

The Supreme Court has handed prison sentences to all those involved in the contempt of court case regarding the content broadcast and published under the name ‘Dark File’ on Sidhakura.com news portal and its YouTube channel.

A nine-member full bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Sidhakura.com committed contempt of court and sentenced the publisher, editor and those who provided false content for broadcast to jail terms.

The portal had created fake audio clips implicating Supreme Court Senior Justice Anand Mohan Bhattarai, Annapurna Media Network Chairperson Captain Rameshwar Thapa, Kantipur Media Group Chairperson Kailash Sirohiya, Annapurna Post Political Bureau Chief Surendra Kafle, and senior advocates Hari Upreti and Kishor Bista. A contempt of court case was filed against Sidhakura.com for publishing and streaming the said news content.

Rajkumar Timalsina, who created the ‘fake audio’, has been sentenced to six months in prison. Similarly, publisher Yuvaraj Kandel and executive editor Nabin Dhungana have been sentenced to three months in prison each. The portal has also been fined Rs 5,000. 

The apex court’s verdict states that the fine can be waived off if the portal apologizes. Likewise, if the publisher and editor submit a written apology regarding the published content, their sentences would be reduced to seven days. However, Timalsina must serve the full sentence.

The Supreme Court found that Timalsina provided false content to Dhungana and Kandel, and considering the nature, gravity and degree of guilt of this act, sentenced him to six months in prison under Section 17(4) of the Justice Administration Act, 2016. “Since Timalsina has shown no remorse or apologetic attitude even during the proceedings of this case, the imposed prison sentence should be implemented by keeping him in detention,” the verdict states.

In the case of executive editor Dhungana and publisher Kandel, the court noted that they did not produce the content themselves but received it from Timalsina. However, they failed to verify the content, which is a minimum requirement for anyone involved in mass communication. Considering the nature, gravity and degree of guilt of their actions, they have each been sentenced to three months in prison under Section 17(4) of the Justice Administration Act, 2016.

“They repeatedly published this content in their media outlet, spreading confusion about the court and creating distrust. This cannot be considered mere negligence or carelessness, but rather a deliberate attempt to spread rumors about this court, its judges and the overall judicial process, with the malicious intent to obstruct the administration of justice,” the Supreme Court ruled. 

Although Dhungana and Kandel claimed in their statements that their intention was not to commit contempt of court but merely to broadcast the received content, and apologized, their apology was not unconditional, the verdict states. “If they appear before this court and express unconditional apology and written commitment to not repeat such acts for the aforementioned contemptuous actions, only seven days of their sentenced imprisonment will be implemented and the rest will be immediately suspended. If they do not apologize or express commitment to not repeat such acts, they must serve the full sentence.”

Regarding Sidhakura.com, the court found it guilty of repeatedly publishing and broadcasting content that spreads confusion about this court and the overall justice system, creating distrust. This act constitutes contemptuous offense under Section 17(4) of the Justice Administration Act, 2016, and a fine of Rs 5,000 has been imposed. “If they publish or broadcast a corrigendum through the relevant medium or program within three months of receiving this order, stating that they trusted the source and published/broadcast without verifying the truth and facts, and inform this court, the record of this fine will also be cleared,” the apex court stated. “If such a correction is not published/broadcast, it should be recovered as government dues.”

The verdict was issued by a full bench comprising Chief Justice Bishwambhar Prasad Shrestha and Justices Prakashman Singh Raut, Sapana Pradhan Malla, Prakash Kumar Dhungana, Hari Prasad Phuyal, Nahakul Subedi, Binod Sharma, Mahesh Sharma Poudel and Balkrishna Dhakal. 

Sidhakura had created and broadcast misleading propaganda material regarding then Supreme Court Justice Dr Anand Mohan Bhattarai, media entrepreneurs, lawyers and journalists. Supreme Court Deputy Registrar Govinda Ghimire had filed a contempt of court case against Sidhakura, arguing that this act had seriously affected the court’s administration of justice.

False, self-conceived, self-generated

The full bench ruled that the disputed content was not based on truth but was misleading, false, fabricated, fictional, self-conceived and self-generated. “It has been found that the basic responsibility of editors and publishers to verify the truthfulness when publishing such content has not been fulfilled,” the verdict states. “No attempt was made to contact court officials or those responsible for judicial administration to verify the truthfulness of such serious and sensitive content before broadcasting.”

The court found that Timalsina, Dhungana and Kandel produced and broadcast the disputed content with malicious intent, ill-will and tendency to obstruct the court’s administration of justice, spreading misleading rumors to create confusion and distrust towards the court, judicial process and overall justice system, thereby tarnishing the court’s dignity and prestige. 

Police investigation had confirmed the audio content was misleading and false. This was based on technical analysis of the audio file, statements from individuals said to be present when the audio clip was recorded, and technical examination of mobile phones. Deputy Inspector General of Police Nabinda Aryal’s investigation report was submitted to the court on this basis. The District Government Attorney’s Office then filed a case against Timalsina, Kandel and Dhungana in Kathmandu District Court on three charges including cybercrime. The court had released all three on bail. With Sunday’s Supreme Court verdict, all three will now have to serve their sentences.

Not within scope of press freedom 

The Supreme Court also ruled that the broadcast of self-conceived, self-generated, false, artificial and fictional audio does not fall within the scope of press freedom. “Such acts of publishing false content under the guise of press freedom to commit contempt of court cannot be acceptable. Therefore, it is confirmed and established that contempt of court was committed by violating the limits of press freedom through the production, publication and broadcast of the disputed content,” the verdict states.