- The Supreme Court ordered Kishor Shrestha's release, ruling that continued detention during the privacy investigation was unnecessary and lacked sufficient justification.
- The court noted the disputed photo was already public on Facebook, questioning the need for criminal detention over previously shared material.
- Authorities were ordered to return seized electronic equipment while the court emphasized constitutional protections for press freedom and media operations.
- Shrestha must cooperate with the ongoing investigation from outside custody, as the ruling does not dismiss the underlying legal allegations.
Kathmandu, Nepal: The Supreme Court has ordered the release of veteran journalist and Janastha Weekly editor-in-chief Kishor Shrestha, directing police to continue any necessary investigation while keeping him outside detention.
A joint bench of Justices Dr. Nahakul Subedi and Balkrishna Dhakal issued the order on Monday after hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Shrestha’s wife, Saraswati Shrestha. The court said that if further investigation is required, Shrestha should be released on personal bond or required to appear before investigators as directed, rather than being kept in custody.
The ruling does not amount to a final dismissal of the allegations against Shrestha. Nor did the court hold that every aspect of his initial arrest was unlawful. Rather, it found that continued detention was not necessary for the investigation under the circumstances presented before it.
The case has attracted considerable attention because it sits at the intersection of press freedom, the right to privacy and the use of criminal law in disputes arising from news publication.
Arrest followed complaint over publication
Shrestha was arrested on the night of August 12 (Shrawan 27, 2083) from his residence in Lalitpur by a police team investigating an alleged offense related to personal privacy. Police had also searched his residence and subsequently the Janastha Weekly office, taking computers and other electronic equipment as part of the investigation.
His wife, Saraswati Shrestha, subsequently approached the Supreme Court, arguing that her husband had been unlawfully detained. During the preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court ordered authorities to produce Shrestha before the court along with the investigation file, the complaint and materials seized during the investigation.
The Kathmandu District Court had earlier granted police additional time to keep Shrestha in custody for investigation.
After the full hearing, however, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no sufficient justification for keeping him in detention while the investigation continued. It therefore ordered the authorities to proceed with the investigation outside custody.
Court questions need for continued detention
One of the central issues before the Supreme Court was whether Shrestha needed to remain behind bars for the investigation.
The court's order makes an important distinction: the existence of a complaint and the procedural steps taken by police did not automatically make the initial arrest unlawful, but that did not mean continued detention was justified.
The court directed that, if further investigation is required, Shrestha be kept on personal bond or required to appear as necessary under Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2017, rather than remaining in custody.
The decision therefore allows the police investigation to continue while removing the need for physical detention.
Disputed photograph had already been posted on Facebook
The disputed publication involved a photograph that was alleged to have violated an individual's right to privacy.
A key point considered by the Supreme Court was the source of the photograph. According to reports on the court's reasoning, the photograph had already been posted publicly on Facebook by the person who later complained about its publication.
The court noted that the government side was unable to dispute that fact. On that basis, the court questioned whether continued criminal detention was justified over publication of material that had already been placed in the public domain by the concerned person.
However, this should not be interpreted as a blanket ruling that anything posted on social media can automatically be republished without legal consequences. The Supreme Court did not finally determine all questions concerning the alleged violation of privacy through the publication.
Instead, it indicated that questions concerning whether the publication ultimately amounted to a violation of personal privacy could be determined through the appropriate legal proceedings.
Court emphasizes constitutional protection of press freedom
The ruling also carries significance for Nepal's constitutional guarantee of press freedom.
The Supreme Court referred to Article 19 of the Constitution of Nepal, which protects the right to communication and provides constitutional safeguards concerning the media.
The court observed that merely publishing a news report does not, by itself, appear to provide sufficient grounds for arresting and detaining an editor or publisher.
The ruling comes at a time when questions over the boundaries between journalism, privacy and criminal law have become increasingly complicated, particularly because news organizations routinely use material originally posted on social media.
The court's position, however, should not be understood as granting journalists unrestricted immunity. Journalists and media organizations remain subject to applicable laws and professional standards. The issue before the court was whether continued custodial detention was justified in this particular investigation.
Press Council had also raised concerns
The Press Council Nepal had earlier expressed concern over Shrestha's arrest and the search of his residence and Janastha Weekly's office.
In a statement issued following the arrest, the council said complaints concerning professional conduct and violations of the journalists' code of ethics can be brought before the council through established procedures. It also reminded journalists and media organizations that press freedom must be exercised responsibly and that professional standards and ethical obligations must be respected.
The council emphasized that protecting press freedom is closely linked to protecting citizens' right to information, while stressing that journalists themselves must ensure that press freedom is not used irresponsibly.
The council also pointed to mechanisms through which corrections, clarifications, responses or other measures can be sought when a published report is alleged to violate journalistic standards.
Seized computers and equipment ordered returned
The Supreme Court also ordered authorities to return materials seized from Shrestha's residence and the Janastha Weekly office.
Reports on the ruling state that the seized equipment included six CPUs and two laptops. The court directed that the materials be returned under the supervision of the court registrar.
The issue of seized equipment had become significant because the devices were connected to the operation of a functioning media organization. Earlier reports said police had taken computers and other electronic equipment from both Shrestha's residence and the Janastha office during the investigation.
The Supreme Court's direction to return the equipment also reflects the constitutional protection relating to communication materials and the operation of the media.
Another complaint filed by Deputy Speaker Ruby Thakur
Separately, Deputy Speaker Ruby Thakur has filed a police complaint against Shrestha at the District Police Range in Lalitpur.
Police have confirmed receiving the complaint and said it was being studied. Thakur has alleged that material published by Janastha harmed her character, reputation and social standing and has sought action under the Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2008), according to reports.
This complaint is separate from the investigation that led to Shrestha's recent arrest and should not be confused with the case considered by the Supreme Court on Monday.
Broader debate over journalism and privacy
The Shrestha case has revived a wider debate in Nepal over where the line should be drawn between the public's right to know and an individual's right to privacy.
Social media has complicated that boundary. Photographs and other information can be made publicly accessible by individuals themselves and can subsequently circulate widely. At the same time, the fact that material is publicly available does not necessarily resolve every legal or ethical question surrounding its subsequent use.
For journalists, the issue involves not only whether material is technically accessible to the public but also whether its publication is relevant to a legitimate news purpose, whether the information has been verified and whether publication causes unjustified harm.
For individuals, the case raises a different concern: whether information voluntarily placed on a social media platform should remain protected from wider publication and whether a person's decision to make something public at one point automatically removes all privacy expectations surrounding it.
The Supreme Court's decision does not finally resolve all of those broader questions. It primarily addresses the more immediate issue of whether Shrestha should remain in police custody while the investigation proceeds.
What the ruling means
The practical effect of Monday's order is clear: Kishor Shrestha is to be released from custodial detention, but the investigation itself is not necessarily over.
If investigators determine that further inquiry is required, Shrestha can be required to appear and cooperate with the investigation while remaining outside custody. The Supreme Court's order therefore separates the question of detention from the question of investigation.
The ruling also provides an important reminder that an arrest during an investigation and a finding of criminal guilt are two entirely different matters. Shrestha has not been convicted of the allegations surrounding the publication.
At the same time, the ruling does not mean that media organizations are exempt from laws governing privacy, defamation, electronic communications or professional conduct.
For Nepal's media sector, the case is therefore likely to remain significant beyond Shrestha's release. It raises continuing questions about how authorities should respond to complaints against journalists, when criminal law should be invoked in disputes over news reports, and how the constitutional guarantee of press freedom can be balanced with the equally important protection of individual privacy.
For now, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line on one immediate question: where continued detention is not necessary, investigation can proceed without keeping a journalist behind bars.
