Supreme Court Overturns Government Decision on State Media Ads

Kathmandu. The Supreme Court has overturned the government's decision to provide government advertisements and information only to state-owned media (Gorkhapatra, Radio Nepal, and Nepal Television), stating that laws cannot be violated in the name of frugality.

A joint bench of Justices Saranga Subedi and Nripadhwaj Niroula has ruled that the decision violates the freedom of the press, the right to communication, and the right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution of Nepal. The court delivered such a verdict after hearing separate petitions filed by advocates Anantraj Luintel and Rahul Kumar Shah on behalf of the Nepal Media Society. The full text of the verdict, made on Asar 30, was recently made public.

In its written response, the government had claimed that the decision was made to maintain frugality in government expenditure and to promote state-owned media. However, the Supreme Court has stated that while the government's objective may be appropriate, the 'means' adopted for it must be lawful. The verdict states, 'The state cannot adopt arbitrary or discriminatory criteria when distributing public resources (advertisements). Advertisement distribution must be objective, transparent, and equitable.'

The court has determined that depriving private media of advertisements by using authority not granted by law at the secretary level, under the guise of frugality, is an act 'beyond the scope of authority.'

The Supreme Court has quashed the decision made by the Secretary level of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers office on Chaitra 18, 2082, labeling it 'arbitrary' and 'contrary to law,' through a writ of certiorari. The court recalled that a specific legal mechanism like the 'Advertisement Board' is active for the distribution and regulation of advertisements, citing the Advertisement (Regulation) Act, 2076.

The verdict mentions that as per Sections 15 and 32 of the Act, the Advertisement Board is responsible for distributing advertisements proportionally, and the secretary's circular sought to render this legal provision ineffective.

The Supreme Court has clarified that government advertisements cannot be used as a means to punish media outlets critical of the government or to reward those that support it.

The court has determined that completely depriving private media of government advertisements could lead to their closure, which would ultimately infringe upon citizens' freedom of thought and expression.

'In a democratic governance system, the state can promote public media, but a policy that almost annihilates private media for that purpose cannot be considered constitutional,' the verdict states.

With this verdict, the way has now been opened for government information and advertisements to be distributed to both government and private media in accordance with the law.