Court and Contempt of Court

11/09/014

Abhishek Jha

Terai Justice Ceneter

Kantipur Publication received the court notice on September 5. Along with its Chairman and Managing Director  Kailash Sirohiya, Director Swastika Sirohiya, Editor-in-Chief of Kantipur daily Sudheer Sharma, and correspondent Ghanshyam Khadka were summoned by the Supreme Court on Thursday. They all were summoned on the charge of Contempt of Court. As per the previous order of the SC, publishers and journalists of Kantipur Publications appeared before the SC on Wednesday to record their statement. The SC had on August 26 ordered publishers of Kantipur Publications and editorial staff of Kantipur daily to appear in person to explain why they should not be convicted in a contempt of court case. Responding to two separate contempt of court cases, a single bench of Justice Gopal Parajuli had issued the summon. In its 11-page initial order, the court has charged the Kantipur daily of running an “institutional mission” to tarnish the image of judiciary. The statement recording process on Thursday was halted to Thursday due to lack of time. Justice Jagadish Sharma refused to proceed ahead the hearing, saying that another Justice Cholendra Shumsher Rana, also presiding over the contempt case against Kantipur, was flying foreign and it was not possible to conduct hearing on such a short time.

Today, on Friday, SC was supposed to record the statements on the charge. But unfortunately, the statements didn’t get recorded today also. Again SC gave the reason of time insufficiency to the charged group of Kantipur Publication. The next date for statement recording is postponed for Sunday. SC in the mere name of time insufficiency is affecting the notion of procedural justice. The time and again postponement of the case is creating a physiological fear to the media. This physiological fear, in some way or the other, is in fact halting the Press Freedom in a whole.

In recent gone by days, the Contempt of Court Bill was heavily criticized from everywhere. It is claimed that the provisions of the bill curtails the Press freedom and Freedom of Opinion and Expression. Experts say, the provisions entitled in the Bill gives a grater jurisdiction to the court, in deciding the contempt of court cases. Where on one side everyone is waiting to see the controversial bill coping up with the fairness, similarly on the other side the delaying process of the court is catching the serious attention of various. In this controversial circumstance, the court should take careful steps to prevent any room for any criticism.