The government on May 9 registered the Media Council Bill in the Parliament proposing formation of Nepal Media Council. The council, according to the bill, can impose a fine of Rs 25,000 to Rs one million on media outlets, publishers, editors, journalists and reporters if they are found guilty of damaging someone’s reputation by publishing or broadcasting news. The bill has also given power to the council to suspend press pass of journalists and downgrade print media outlets if they violate the code of conduct. What’s more, the bill has also proposed that the government appoint most of the members of the council. Jagdishor Panday of The Himalayan Times talked to Taranath Dahal, a senior journalist and former president of the Federation of Nepali Journalists, the apex umbrella body of journalists in Nepal, about provisions in the bill. Excerpts: How do you see the Media Council Bill? The Medial Council Bill has been prepared to replace the Press Council Act. Press Council was established during the single-party Panchayat era primarily to monitor activities of print media. But even after restoration of democracy in 1991, the institution was not abolished. Today, the media landscape has changed with the emergence of digital media. So the new Media Council Bill was drafted to monitor the new media as well. One of the controversial provisions of the new bill is the proposal to put a journalist with mere 10-year experience at the helm of the proposed Nepal Media Council. This is a regressive move because even in the Panchayat era the head of the Press Council used to be an incumbent Supreme Court justice. After restoration of democracy, we changed that provision and allowed a senior advocate or a senior journalist to head the institution. Even today, the Media Council in many countries is headed by someone from the judicial background. Even in India, the Press Council is headed by a senior Supreme Court justice. Another controversial provision in the bill is the proposal to allow the government to hand-pick six members of the proposed Media Council. The bill has also proposed appointing a government joint-secretary as member of the Media Council. These are attempts made by the government to interfere in the works of the council. If these provisions are not changed, the council will become a division of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, giving the ministry the leeway to define ethical and responsible journalism and punish journalists who write against the government. These provisions have been included to control the media and make it toe the government’s line, which are objectionable. The media sector has long been saying it is capable of regulating itself and it should be allowed to do so. The bill has been registered in the Parliament Secretariat and the government is in no mood to withdraw it, isn’t this the case? I am not saying the bill has to be retracted because the Press Council has become obsolete and it is not impartial and free. What can be done is that most provisions regarding organisational structure, fines and punishment proposed by the Media Council Bill can be amended. In a nutshell, the proposed Media Council should be an autonomous and independent body. What also needs to be done is to promote self-regulation of the media sector. The Mass Communications Policy introduced by the government incorporates a provision on self regulation. This provision must be introduced as it is in the Mass Communications Bill and Media Council Bill. You just touched upon the issue of organisational structure of the Media Council proposed by the new bill, which, you said, was objectionable. What changes should be made? The bill has proposes to create a nine-member committee to steer the Media Council. Of the nine members, six will be appointed by the government, which is objectionable. Other members include a government joint-secretary, vice-chair of the Federation of Nepali Journalists and the chairman. The chairman of the proposed council must be from judicial background. The elected members of FNJ must be a part of the proposed council just as in the Medical Council. Also, all seven provinces should be allowed to send their representatives. However, the proposed council should not be an exclusive club of journalists. So, representatives of the academic sector, civil society and consumer rights groups should be given some space in the proposed council. The bill also seeks to impose fine of up to Rs one million on journalists. What is your take on this provision? The proposed Media Council should not be allowed to impose fines. Media councils of liberal democratic countries do not slap such fines. So, the provision should be scrapped. So, in your opinion, the provisions of the new bill contradict the constitution’s preamble, which has clearly mentioned ‘full freedom of the press’? The constitution’s preamble talks of complete press freedom, but if you look at the provision on ‘freedom of opinion and expression’ in Article 17 of the charter, you will notice the limitations. The media sector had objected to Article 17, which curtails freedom of opinion and expression when the constitution was drafted. But it was not changed. There are other media-related provisions in the constitution that are controversial. For example, our constitution has enshrined right to communication as a fundamental right. But Article 19 of the constitution has made an attempt to curtail that right. The government is now using these constitutional loopholes to control the media sector. So, these controversial constitutional provisions must be amended. What kind of message is the government trying to relay by making these decisions? The two-thirds majority communist government has been trying to suppress press freedom from the start. Look at the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Many provisions in these codes restrict press freedom and freedom of expression. These provisions are aimed at criminalising expression of critical opinion and journalistic reporting on misconduct and malpractices. The government should not resort to criminal restrictions on free press. In other words, the government should decriminalise expression of critical opinion. This will prevent journalists from being rounded up and thrown behind bars as soon as a complaint is made. I mean journalists should not be arrested on the basis of a complaint if they are doing their job. However, if they violate criminal law, they should be punished.