The Supreme Court has convicted the publisher and the editor of sidhakura.com, a Kathmandu-based news website and YouTube channel, for contempt of court concluding that the contents they aired were baseless.

An extended full bench of the top court on Sunday imposed three months of jail terms on its publisher Yubraj Kandel and executive editor Nabin Dhungana. “However, if they apologise for their act while also publishing corrigendum and commit not to repeat it [the offence] again, reduce their jail terms to seven days,” reads the court order. If they don’t show remorse, they will have to serve the full term.

Dhungana and Kandel have been jailed following the verdict. They presented themselves before the police in central jail, announced Dhungana on X, a social media platform.

The court has imposed six months of jail term and Rs5,000 fine on Raj Kumar Timilsina, who provided the audio content to the team of the online media. The court has concluded that he created the fake content with malicious intent.

Led by Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha, the nine-member extended full bench including Prakash Man Singh Raut and Sapana Malla Pradhan among others, issued the verdict after putting it on hold for months.

The bench has concluded that though Kandel and Dhungana didn’t produce the content, they published it repeatedly without fulfilling a minimum responsibility of the media to verify the content’s authenticity.

On April 26, the website published text as well as audio clips claiming that the chairpersons of two leading media houses sat in a meeting with incumbent and former Supreme Court justices and senior advocates to dismiss over 400 corruption cases in the court. An April 21, 2021 court verdict was part of the deal, it had claimed.

The court on April 28 had launched a suo moto contempt of court case against the publisher and the editor of the website for publishing defamatory content against one of its justices. Govinda Ghimire, a deputy registrar at the top court, filed the writ petition claiming that “serious, fabricated and misleading audiovisual content published by the website was a malicious attempt to defame the judiciary.”

The petition was filed as per Article 128(4) of the Constitution of Nepal, section 17(1) of the Judicial Administration Act and Supreme Court regulations.

In case anyone causes obstruction in the dispensation of justice or disregards any order or judgment handed down by it or any of its subordinate courts, the court may, in accordance with the law, initiate proceedings of contempt, says the constitutional provision. Similarly, the Act allows the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings if it finds anything that is posing hurdles to discharging its duties.

After a preliminary hearing, a division bench of justices Nahakul Subedi and Tek Prasad Dhungana on April 29 said content published on the website was prima facie a malicious attempt to defame the judiciary, obstruct the judicial proceedings and scandalise the court.

The justice named in the media content referring to the April 21, 2021 verdict of the Constitutional Bench was not part of the bench nor did the advocates named have any link with the case.

The justices in the preliminary hearing had directed Yubraj Kandel, publisher of the website, and Nabin Dhungana, its editor, to be present at the court with evidence to substantiate their reports and to answer why they shouldn’t be booked for contempt of court.

They, however, failed to substantiate the authenticity of the content but rather said they got it from Timilsina.

Later, a division bench of justices Kumar Chudal and Binod Sharma on June 19 forwarded the case to an extended full bench for a final hearing, pointing out the need for a comprehensive judicial interpretation of freedom of expression and press freedom.

The order stated that it would be appropriate for an extended full bench to resolve the serious questions of whether the act defames Supreme Court justices, legal professionals, the media, and other individuals.

In the first week of June, the police investigation team concluded that the audio content published by the website was fake. The police then filed the case at the Kathmandu District Court under the Electronic Transactions Act. The court released them on bail but was yet to pass the verdict.

“The publisher and editor of the news website were not found trying to talk to the officials from the judiciary or the judicial service before publishing such serious and sensitive content,” reads the full bench ruling.

“The content was produced and aired with a malicious intent to create obstruction in judicial service and defame and degrade the faith in the judiciary.”

The full text of the verdict will be released later, according to the bench.