The court ruling affirms Press Council’s authority over online platforms
KATHMANDU, May 14: The Patan High Court has upheld the decision of the Press Council Nepal (PCN) to monitor and take disciplinary action against digital media platforms.
A division bench of Justices Munendra Awasthi and Tikaram Acharya ruled that the PCN’s jurisdiction extends to digital media operating via online news portals, YouTube channels and social media platforms. The verdict reinforces the PCN’s authority to oversee content disseminated through such mediums.
The ruling followed a hearing on a writ petition filed against the PCN’s decision dated December 13, 2024, in which several digital media outlets, including Diyopost.com, were blacklisted. Diyo Post had challenged the PCN’s authority by filing the writ, which the court has now quashed.
“This verdict clearly affirms that digital media must also adhere to the journalistic code of conduct,” said Press Council Chairperson Balkrishna Basnet. “The court has explicitly clarified that the PCN’s jurisdiction includes not only online portals but also digital media operating via YouTube, Facebook pages, and other social platforms.”
The PCN had introduced regulatory guidelines a year ago to monitor and take disciplinary action against digital media. Diyo Post had contested the PCN’s initiative—considered a pioneering effort in South Asia to regulate media on platforms like YouTube and Facebook.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the PCN was represented by legal advisors Advocates Ananta Raj Luitel, Jhabindra Bhushal, Liladhar Upadhyaya, Bikash Bhattarai, Kirtinath Sharma Paudel, Pratibha Upreti and Bishal Thapa. They argued that regulatory bodies must be respected and accused the petitioner of spreading misinformation by disregarding lawful decisions. They emphasized the need to safeguard the path for responsible regulation.
Previously, the Patan High Court had also upheld the PCN’s authority in a similar case involving Nepal Aaja, another online outlet that had been blacklisted.
In its petition, Diyo Media claimed the PCN lacked jurisdiction to monitor its activities. However, the PCN had taken action against the outlet for spreading baseless, sensational content—often accompanied by misleading thumbnails and fear-inducing headlines—intended to mislead the public. The PCN also cited repeated violations of its directives and deliberate dissemination of false information as grounds for the disciplinary measures.