‘An attack on the constitution’: Police detention of journalists draws widespread condemnation

Plainclothes police visited the offices of Nepal Press, Naya Patrika Daily, Diyo Post and Motivate News. They detained some journalists and searched for others connected with reports about senior government and judicial officials. The incidents raised concerns because police entered newsrooms and questioned journalists instead of using established press-regulation channels.

Police took Nepal Press journalist Bishwamani Subedi to the Cyber Bureau. Officers searched Naya Patrika for reporter Nawaraj Mainali and Diyo Post for editor-in-chief Sudeep Bishwakarma and news coordinator Madan Dhungana. They did not find the Diyo Post journalists. Police also detained Motivate News editor Shovaraj Baral.

The Press Council said police had not explained the legal grounds, shown arrest warrants or presented court authorisation. Freedom Forum and other press advocates said detaining journalists to identify sources was illegal. Political leaders condemned the intervention. The prime minister’s secretariat denied prior knowledge and said detained journalists should be released immediately.

Police visited four news organisations: Nepal Press, Naya Patrika Daily, Diyo Post and Motivate News. The visits happened on Friday, including after office hours and before two consecutive public holidays. The number matters because the action was not an isolated newsroom incident. It involved several media outlets and multiple police teams.

Two named journalists were detained: Nepal Press journalist Bishwamani Subedi and Motivate News editor Shovaraj Baral. Police sought three others: Naya Patrika reporter Nawaraj Mainali, Diyo Post editor-in-chief Sudeep Bishwakarma and news coordinator Madan Dhungana. Mainali was not found during the reported newsroom visit. Diyo Post staff said officers also left without finding Bishwakarma or Dhungana.

Thus, the article identifies five journalists as detained or sought. It also reports that Subedi and several others were brought to the Cyber Bureau for questioning, so the total number questioned may have been broader than the five named people. The police did not publicly clarify the full legal basis for every detention.

Press freedom means journalists can gather, verify and publish information without improper government control, intimidation or retaliation. It matters because reporting helps the public examine powerful institutions and make informed judgments. The article links this principle to Nepal’s constitutional and legal protections for press freedom and freedom of expression.

In practice, these protections generally cover newsroom independence, publication of matters of public interest and the ability to obtain information from sources. Source confidentiality is especially important. If journalists can be forced into custody simply to reveal sources, people may stop sharing evidence about government or judicial conduct. The article says advocates viewed that use of detention as illegal.

The report does not set out every legal limit on press freedom. Generally, journalists can still face lawful processes for offences, but those processes should have a legal basis and respect due process. Here, the Press Council said police had not clarified the reasons, shown warrants or demonstrated court authorisation. That gap drove the condemnation.

The journalists were questioned in connection with reports about senior government and judicial officials. The article does not provide a single formal police allegation against every journalist. The Press Council said police had not clarified the reasons for the arrests or confirmed whether a formal complaint had been filed.

The reports included claims that the government had sought the resignation of Inspector General of Police Dan Bahadur Karki. They also included WhatsApp exchanges between Supreme Court Justice Hari Phuyal and Inam Sapkota. Another report concerned a purported financial transaction document bearing the names of Chief Justice Manoj Sharma and Rastriya Swatantra Party lawmaker Bishwaraj Pokharel.

Media advocates said police were trying to identify journalists’ information sources. Taranath Dahal said that if information had leaked from inside the police organisation, investigators should examine their own system. The article says journalists should be able to obtain information from different sources on matters of public interest without being arrested for doing so.

When police detain someone, basic safeguards normally require a lawful reason for the detention. Authorities should identify the alleged offence or grounds, follow the required arrest procedure and inform the person of relevant rights. Depending on the legal system and circumstances, an arrest warrant or court authorisation may be required, especially for planned searches or arrests.

These safeguards create accountability. A warrant or court order records that an authorised body reviewed the request. Stated grounds tell the detained person why action was taken. Formal complaint procedures create a record and allow the person to seek legal advice or challenge the detention. Requirements can differ in urgent cases, but detention still needs a legal basis.

In this incident, the Press Council said police had not clarified the reasons, presented arrest warrants or shown evidence of court authorisation. It also questioned whether a formal complaint existed. The article does not establish that every safeguard was legally required in every instance, but it reports that authorities had not publicly demonstrated them.

The Press Council and media advocates distinguished between regulating published news and investigating ordinary criminal conduct. They said complaints about reports or alleged breaches of the journalists’ code of conduct should first use the Press Council’s established mechanisms. This approach matters because it provides a specialised route instead of immediately treating reporting as a police matter.

The Press Council said authorities should not use direct police intervention over complaints that could be handled through the council. Taranath Dahal said complaints about published reports should go there and that such disputes did not warrant Cyber Bureau involvement. He also said obtaining information from different sources on public-interest matters was a fundamental part of journalism.

The advocates’ concern was the method, not simply the existence of complaints. Police entered newsrooms, detained journalists and reportedly sought their sources without publicly explaining the legal basis. Binod Dhungel warned that this could intimidate the media and discourage critical reporting. The council demanded legal grounds and immediate release where no lawful basis existed.

Protecting sources allows journalists to report information that powerful institutions may prefer to keep hidden. If journalists can be detained to reveal those sources may fear retaliation and stop communicating. Journalists may also avoid publishing difficult stories. That would weaken public-interest reporting and reduce the information available for public debate.

The article gives a direct example. Police visited four newsrooms after reports involving the police chief, Supreme Court communications and a purported financial document naming senior officials. Taranath Dahal said journalists were being detained to discover who supplied information. Shiva Gaunle called the newsroom entries and arrests an attack on the constitution. These reactions show why the source issue became central.

The immediate consequence could be intimidation and self-censorship. Binod Dhungel warned that the action might discourage critical reporting. The longer-term implication is pressure on constitutional protections for press freedom and expression. The Press Council demanded lawful procedures and release without a legal basis, while political leaders and the prime minister’s secretariat called for the intervention to stop.