Who ordered the police crackdown on journalists?

Four journalists were detained or targeted in the reported operation. They were Bishwamani Subedi of Nepal Press, Nawaraj Mainali of Naya Patrika, Shobharaj Baral of Motivate News and Dhiraj Basnet of DNA Khabar. The police action mattered because officers entered newsrooms and used detention rather than ordinary contact.

Subedi said officers questioned him about news reports after taking him from his workplace. Police sought Mainali after he published WhatsApp exchanges involving Supreme Court Justice Hari Phuyal and Inam Sapkota. Baral was approached at his office and detained. Basnet was told there was a problem with an eSewa number, then taken into custody. Police spokesperson Abinarayan Kafle said the broader concern involved misleading reports and messages about Nepal Police.

The article presents the operation as an attempt to pressure journalists over their reporting and sources. Police said they were acting in good faith, while the Press Council chair questioned their authority. The Prime Minister’s secretariat said the prime minister ordered the journalists released and directed authorities not to enter newsrooms or act against journalists.

The article identifies four journalists who were detained or targeted across four media outlets. They were Bishwamani Subedi at Nepal Press, Nawaraj Mainali at Naya Patrika, Shobharaj Baral at Motivate News and Dhiraj Basnet at DNA Khabar. The operation therefore extended beyond one newsroom or one individual dispute.

The pattern was significant because police used different approaches at several outlets. Officers took Subedi from Nepal Press in New Baneshwar. They waited at Naya Patrika’s Putalisadak office for Mainali. At Motivate News in Bijulibazaar, officers detained Baral after a casual-sounding approach. Police contacted Basnet by claiming there was a problem with an eSewa number, then took him into custody.

The reported scale remained limited to four named journalists and four named outlets in the provided text. It still raised a broader concern because police appeared to be acting across newsrooms. The operation also prompted denials from government bodies and instructions from Prime Minister Balendra Shah to release the journalists and stop newsroom interventions.

No government body publicly accepted clear responsibility for ordering the operation. Nepal Police said its Cyber Bureau summoned journalists after the Prime Minister’s Office expressed concern about news reports. Police spokesperson Abinarayan Kafle said the office had raised concerns about misleading reports and messages concerning Nepal Police.

The Prime Minister’s Office rejected that account. Deepa Dahal, media management coordinator at Prime Minister Balendra Shah’s secretariat, said the prime minister, his secretariat and the office had not been involved and had received no prior information. She said Shah ordered the journalists released after learning about the incident. The home ministry did not comment.

The competing accounts matter because the operation involved plainclothes officers entering or waiting at several media offices. Police defended their actions as part of their duties, while the prime minister’s secretariat said authorities had been directed not to enter newsrooms or act against journalists. The article therefore leaves responsibility disputed rather than settled.

The article presents the Press Council, Nepal as the institution responsible for handling complaints about media reports. It does not describe the council’s full structure or powers. It does establish that complaints concerning reporting fall within the council’s jurisdiction, rather than directly under the police.

That distinction became important after officers entered media offices and questioned journalists. Police spokesperson Abinarayan Kafle defended the operation as a good-faith duty. Press Council chair Umesh Shrestha disagreed. He said police had issued a warning about legal action one day before carrying out an operation that appeared to follow through on that threat.

Shrestha’s criticism focused on institutional boundaries. In his view, police action appeared to bypass the body assigned to address media complaints. The issue was therefore not only what journalists had published, but also which institution should examine those reports. The dispute added to criticism because police action looked like pressure on newsrooms rather than a council-led complaint process.

After police entered newsrooms and detained or targeted journalists, the operation became a dispute over press freedom and official authority. The article describes plainclothes officers appearing at several media offices, including Nepal Press, Naya Patrika, Motivate News and DNA Khabar. The prime minister’s secretariat said the journalists should be released and that authorities should not enter newsrooms or act against journalists.

The criticism had two main causes. First, police questioning appeared connected to published reports and efforts to identify sources. Second, Press Council chair Umesh Shrestha said complaints about media reports belonged to the council, not the police. Subedi said officers could have called him, but their group arrival made the detention clear. Other journalists were approached through apparently casual or misleading explanations.

Police maintained that journalists had only been summoned or that officers acted in good faith. Government offices denied responsibility or stayed silent. The conflicting accounts left the operation’s authority disputed. The incident also raised concern that police could intimidate newsrooms when they objected to reporting about investigations or the police organisation.

A police operation across several newsrooms can affect multiple journalists, media organisations and an institution’s public credibility. Senior officials may therefore need to know in advance whether the action is lawful, who has authority and how it will be carried out. The article shows why this matters: plainclothes officers entered or waited at four media outlets and detained or targeted journalists.

The operation also involved sensitive reporting. Police questioned journalists about reports, including WhatsApp exchanges involving a Supreme Court justice and a person under investigation. Police spokesperson Abinarayan Kafle linked the action to concerns about misleading information concerning Nepal Police. Such a broad response requires clear responsibility, especially when complaints about media reports fall within the Press Council’s jurisdiction.

The article shows the risks of unclear coordination. Police said the Prime Minister’s Office had raised concerns, while that office denied prior knowledge. The prime minister’s secretariat said Shah ordered releases and directed authorities not to enter newsrooms. Advance notification could help prevent conflicting orders, unlawful detention and uncertainty over who approved the operation.

Journalists’ confidential sources can provide information about wrongdoing, misconduct or decisions that institutions may not disclose openly. Protecting those sources helps reporters investigate matters in the public interest. In this case, the operation appeared aimed at questioning journalists and pressuring them to reveal where reports came from, making the source issue central to the controversy.

The article gives several examples of police questioning reporters about their work. Bishwamani Subedi said officers questioned him about news reports after taking him from Nepal Press. Police sought Nawaraj Mainali after he published WhatsApp exchanges involving Supreme Court Justice Hari Phuyal and Inam Sapkota. Police spokesperson Abinarayan Kafle cited concerns about misleading reports and messages about Nepal Police.

If reporters fear detention or newsroom raids, sources may stop sharing information. Important evidence may remain hidden, and journalists may avoid sensitive investigations. That can weaken public scrutiny of police, government officials and other powerful figures. The article’s dispute also shows why the Press Council’s role and clear limits on police action matter for press freedom and accountability.