KATHMANDU: The hearing on the habeas corpus petition filed against the arrest of journalist Kishor Shrestha concluded at the Supreme Court on Monday. Following the completion of arguments, the joint bench of Justices Nahakul Subedi and Balkrishna Dhakal has begun preparing its order.
Shrestha’s wife, Saraswati Shrestha, had filed the petition at the Supreme Court on Friday, challenging his arrest as unlawful. The hearing continued throughout Monday.
Seventeen lawyers representing Shrestha presented arguments, while four government attorneys represented the state.
Shrestha’s lawyers argued that publishing a photograph already made public by the concerned person on Facebook does not constitute a violation of privacy.
They argued that the photograph involving an RSP lawmaker and a woman had been publicly posted by the woman herself on her Facebook account. They questioned how using such a publicly available photograph in a news report could amount to a breach of privacy.
Senior advocate Shambhu Thapa argued that Jana Aastha Weekly had not taken the photograph by entering the concerned person’s home, but had published a report based on material already available on social media.
“Writing news is a journalist’s duty,” Thapa argued. He said Shrestha had reported on courts, police, the army, politicians, doctors, lawyers and people from various other sectors as part of his professional responsibility.
Senior advocate Tikaram Bhattarai also argued that photographs or other material voluntarily made public on social media cannot be regarded as entirely private content.
“If a person makes a photograph or video public themselves, it cannot remain entirely personal,” Bhattarai argued.
He maintained that arresting and detaining a journalist merely for publishing a report based on publicly available material was unlawful.
Government presents a different argument
During the hearing, the bench questioned the government lawyers about how republishing material voluntarily made public on social media could constitute a violation of privacy.
The government side argued that the fact that a person has posted material on their own social media account does not automatically give the media unrestricted authority to republish it. It maintained that making something available personally on social media and having it widely disseminated or published by a media outlet are two different matters.
Shrestha describes conditions in detention
Journalist Shrestha also addressed the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, claiming that the government had arrested him on the basis of political prejudice and a false case.
He complained that the District Police Complex had kept him in detention alongside suspects accused of drug-related offences, causing him mental distress.
“I have been kept with 55 accused in drug-related cases. I have not been able to sleep for five days. My family members and lawyers were also not allowed to meet me separately,” Shrestha told the bench emotionally.
He became visibly emotional and broke down while presenting his statement.
Comment