Center for Media Rights

सूचनाअधिकारबारे सामग्री

  Relevant Articles
   International Mission
Comprehensive Peace Agreement Nov. 2006

Killing the Messenger
Report on the global enquiry by the International News Safety Institute into the protection of journalists.

The Public's
Right to Know

Principles on Freedom of
Information Legislation

Manual for Arab Journalists on
Freedom of Inform ation and Investigative

खतरनाक परिस्थितिमा काम गर्ने पत्रकारहरूका लागि निर्देशिका

यो पुस्तक पत्रकारहरूका लागि निकै उपयोगी छ । यसलाई
बाट साभार यहाँ राखिएको छ । यहाँ क्लिक गरेर पढन र डाउनलोड गर्न सक्नुहुन्छ ।

Gender Equity Charter 2006 FNJ
पत्रकारहरुका लागि सम्पन्न कार्यक्रमहरू

संविधानसभा निर्वाचन आचार संहिता
हेर्नुहोस्, डाउनलोड गर्नुहोस





मिडियाको लोकतन्त्रीकरण पुस्तक

Click here to Download
Click here to Download
Click here to Download
Rights and Responsibilities of Journalists. A Handbook Produced by Centre for Media Rights (CMR), Nepal with the support of Nepal Media and Demoractic Strengthening Project/IMPACS
मिडियामा काम गर्ने महिलाहरूको संख्या र गुण कसरी बढाउने
रणनीति पत्र
यहाँ क्लिक गरेर हेर्नुहोस् वा पीडीएफ मा डाउनलोड गर्नुहोस

सामुदायिक रेडियो स्टेसनहरूको विश्व संगठन अमार्कको नेपाल वेबसाइट हेर्नुसः AMARC

Relevant Articles in English

Fraud media ordinance

- The promulgation of the new Ordinance by the government to amend some Acts related to media has drawn widespread criticism and given rise to new debates in the constitutional arena. The criticism and debate arose as the move is expected to bring about adverse impacts on the movement of free press.

There are some controversial provisions in the Ordinance which are listed below: the amendment to Section 32(2) of National News Agencies Act which states "news agencies pursuant to Sub-section (1) can disseminate their news throughout the Kingdom of Nepal by obtaining permission from HMG" has been substituted for what was originally written as "news agencies pursuant to Sub-section (1) shall disseminate and sell their news throughout the Kingdom through news agencies or HMG established under current laws" and, the amendment to Clause (a) of Section 14 of Press and Publication Act which states, "His Majesty's and members of royal family" has been substituted for "His Majesty's" to restrict any news or views items to be published or broadcast against the King or members of royal family. (According to the current Nepali laws, members of royal family means family members of four generations of the King. According to the Constitution, no special privileges or prerogative powers is given to such members of the royal family except the King for the time being and only with the exception that the royal family enjoys expenditure from the consolidated fund of state).

Likewise, in the amendment to Clause (d) of Section 12(2) of Press Council Act, where the words "or his press representative certificate or temporary press representative certificate shall be cancelled" have been added after the words "complete stop". (According to original provision of the Act, the Council can have power to recommend HMG to stop partial or complete facility or concession enjoyed by a journalist from HMG) The amendment to Section 5 of National Broadcasting Act where the words "informative programs" have been substituted for the words "news-related programs" (if this amendment is effective, the broadcasting of news-related programs through any electronic means of media including cable, satellite, or FM can be affected. The amendment does not, as claimed by HMG, merely affect the broadcast of news on FM. It will also affect the stay order of Supreme Court issued to Government in respect of broadcast of news on FM).

The additional provision of Section 6A to National Broadcasting Act- "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or elsewhere in any current laws any person or organization shall not be given license or certificate of radio, television and publication either at once or time by time" is also a matter of serious controversy included in the Ordinance. The Government will also lose its power to hold three media- radio, television and print if this provision is enforced. Besides, the omission of the words "institutions or joint venture with local or foreign person or" contained in Section 9(1); the addition of Section 11A "any broadcasting institution shall not broadcast its program simultaneously from other than one place without obtaining permission from HMG" of the Act and the substantial changes made to Sections 5-10 of Defamation Act in respect of increasing penalty are other serious controversies.

According to new amendment to the Defamation Act, anyone broadcasting or publishing any defamatory matter through any electronic or other means of mass communication deliberately or with a reasonable cause will be fined with Rs. 100,000.00 to Rs. 500,000.00 or up to 2 years imprisonment or both. This provision stands against basic principles of criminal jurisprudence, which says that only the one who is guilty of crime is liable to imprisonment.

One has to understand that all defamatory acts do not involve elements of crimes. It should be classified into two kinds: libel and slander. A familiar statement is that libel is written whereas slander is oral. Libel is further classified as both a crime and a tort. Of them, only the criminal libel is liable to imprisonment but no longer prosecuted as a crime because of constitutional protections of free press. (Black's Law Dictionary- 1999, P 927). Contrary to these accepted rules, the Ordinance has provisions for imprisonment for all kinds of defamatory acts including the torts.

In a situation, some moot questions are now attached on the part of Ordinance to receive a valid force of law. They are: whether the Ordinance can amend the legislative Acts? Can it change or make otherwise effect to the substantive rights or provisions created by the Legislature? Has it fulfilled the requirements of Article 72? Can all defamatory acts committed by a journalist be made liable to imprisonment? And so forth.

Obviously, the executive has ordinance-making power. It may promulgate Ordinances, as the circumstances appear to require. However, one cannot forget basic differences between law-making power of Legislature and executive. The executive exercises an Ordinance-making power while the power of Act-making is limited to a democratically elected legislature. Due to this very nature and mandate of power, the making of an Ordinance can never be equated with the enactment of an Act. Indeed, the Ordinance and Act may have same effect after the enactment (if duly made), this does not mean that the scope of law-making power of the two is same: an ordinance cannot make a provision, which cannot be enacted by an Act of Parliament. Nor can it make a provision, which amends the legislative Acts or effects substantive rights of an individual or institutions, which are already established by Legislature.

The Courts have, post 80s, propounded the doctrine of "occupied field" and of "substantive part of the law" in relation to the exercise of law-making power of the executive. (One example of this could be a D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar case of 1987 of the Indian Supreme Court). To this doctrine, when a subject is already covered by a statute passed by the Legislature, the Government cannot meddle, change or amend with that subject through its executive power. Therefore, it is an accepted rule of law that the executive power is not available in respect of the subject, which is already covered by legislation. Nor is the power available in amending, changing, subtracting or omitting any substantive rights or provisions established by legislative Acts.

To receive a force of law under Article 72, any ordinance needs to meet certain conditions. The first is that the Parliament must not be in session. Secondly, the power to promulgate Ordinance must be exercised on the advice and recommendation of Council of Ministers headed by an elected Prime Minister. Thirdly, the King before promulgating any Ordinance would have met the obligation arisen from Article 53. Fourthly, the promulgation of an Ordinance should be very much the exception to ordinary legislative procedure and in no way the norm or the rule. Fifthly, the circumstance must exist in which immediate action is necessary. It is said that the power to promulgate Ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation. It must be justified as being "necessary" rather than being "desired". Sixthly, it must be exercised without prejudicing other provisions set forth in the Constitution. And, finally Ordinance must be promulgated with a good faith and mind.

The present Ordinance has not satisfied all these aforesaid conditions. The Government move is, therefore, completely unconstitutional and objectionable. The act of Government can, categorically, be termed as a colorable exercise of power; subversion of the democratic process and more importantly a fraud on the constitution. The executive cannot usurp the law-making function of Legislature without justifying the urgent need and rationale to do so. Nor can it be perverted to serve political ends.

(The writer is a constitutional lawyer)

The Kathmandu Post, 2005-10-21



पत्रकारहरुको अधिकार र
कर्तव्यबारे दस्तावेजहरु
मिडियामा बालबालिका निर्देशन र सिद्धान्तहरू
सूचना तथा सञ्चार क्षेत्रको दीर्घकालिन निति २०५९
छापाखाना तथा प्रकाशन ऐन
छापाखाना तथा प्रकाशन नियमावली
राष्ट्रिय प्रसारण नियमावली, २०५२
सूचना प्रविधि नीति, २०५७
संचारसम्बन्धी केही ऐनलाई संशोधन गर्न बनेको अध्यादेश २०६२
प्रतिनिधि सभाको घोषणा, २०६३
सात दल र माओवादीबीच आठ बुँदे सहमति
सातदल र माओवादीबीच कार्तिक २२ गते भएको ऐतिहासिक सहमति
नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान २०६३
नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान २०६३ मा पहिलो संशोधन नेपालको अन्तरिम संविधान २०६३ मा दोस्रो संशोधन
उच्चस्तरीय मिडिया सुझाव आयोगको प्रतिवेदन २०६३
उपयोगी प्रकाशन

Developing Alternative Media Traditions in Nepal
Author: Michael Wilmore
Publisher: Martin Chautari, 2009

"(The book) examines how these innovative media came about and many obstacles their producers faced when attempting to speak of and to their own community. The book is based on long-term ethnographic research in Nepal in the mid-1990s and subsequent accounts of the continuing development of Tansen's community media organizations. Michael Wilmore offers a unique perspective on how people in developing nations use mass media. This book is one of the full-length, detailed accounts in English of new media development in Nepal and is suitable for advanced students and researchers of anthropology and media studies."

Appraisals versus Introspections
An Ethical Perspective on Fermenting Nepali Media

Author: Laxman Datta Pant
Publisher: Readmore
First Edition 2010

"Pant's book brings into focus many contemporary issues relating to the role of the media in a democracy. ... I hope the book will lead to new policy initiatives that will help strengthen the role of the media in Nepal's nascent democracy. ..." 
– Bharat Dutta Koirala, Recipient of Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism in 2002

"A sincere reader would definitely find in it some useful nourishment for understanding the contemporary media and society of Nepal. .."
– R. K. Regmee, Senior Journalist

मधेस आन्दोलनमा मिडिया
मधेस आन्दोलनमा नेपाली प्रेसले खेलेको भूमिका र झेल्नु परेको समस्याका बारेमा फ्रिडम फोरमले गरेको अध्यनको प्रतिवेदन यसै साता सार्वजनिक गरिएको छ । अधिनायकवादी सत्ताको विरोधमा र जनअधिकारका पक्षमा लागेर खारिएको नेपाली प्रेस मधेस आन्दोलनमा किन आलोचित हुनुपर्‍यो ? कसरी यसको व्यावसायिक दक्षता र नैतिक आचारमाथि नै प्रश्न खडा भयो ? यस्ता अनेकौँ प्रश्नको जवाफ यो अध्ययन प्रतिवदनले दिन खोजेको छ । यसका सुझावहरु नेपाली प्रेसका लागि आँखा खोल्ने खालका छन् ।
प्रतिवेदनको सार हेर्न यहाँ क्लिक गर्नुहोस

नयाँ नेपालको निर्माण प्रक्रियामा आमसंचार कानुनको पुनरावलोकन (मस्यौदा प्रतिवेदन)
दक्षिण एशियाली स्वतन्त्र पत्रकार संगठन (साफ्मा) नेपाल च्याप्टर

जनसंचार र प्रजातन्त्रीकरण नेपालको सन्दर्भमा एक अध्ययन (२०५३)

आमसंचार र कानुन नेपाल प्रेस इन्स्टिच्युट २०५८




प्रकाशनको दिग्दर्शन प्रेस काउन्सिल नेपाल चौथो संस्करण २०६०

 © Copyright 2013 Communication and Media Resource. All Rights Reserved. For enquiries: Website Developed by: Dreams & Ideas