Nepal’s government has released a draft Media Council bill classifying journalistic violations into three tiers, with penalties ranging from mandatory apologies for minor errors to suspension of press credentials and state benefits for severe breaches, drawing criticism over potential state control.

Nepal’s Ministry of Information and Communication has published a draft bill seeking to amend and integrate laws relating to the Media Council, introducing a structured system of penalties for breaches of journalistic ethics that ranges from simple corrections to the suspension of press passes and withdrawal of government benefits. The proposal, opened for public feedback, arrives against a backdrop of repeated attempts to regulate the media sector and ongoing debates about the independence of regulatory bodies in the Himalayan nation.

The draft, formally titled the ‘Bill to Amend and Integrate Laws Relating to the Media Council’, categorises violations of the code of conduct into three distinct tiers based on severity. This framework aims to move away from earlier, more punitive approaches while establishing clearer accountability mechanisms for media outlets and individual journalists.

Three-Tier Classification of Violations

According to Section 20(3) of the draft, the lowest tier covers ‘journalistic errors’. These include minor mistakes such as incorrect names, designations, dates or numerical statistics, typographical errors, and the inadvertent mixing of opinion with news reporting. For these, the proposed Media Council would primarily issue directives requiring corrections or formal apologies.

The second tier, labelled ‘professional negligence’, addresses more significant ethical lapses. Examples include failure to conduct basic fact-checking, denying accused parties a fair opportunity to respond, reliance on unverified sources, or distortion of headlines and accompanying photographs. Penalties here escalate to demands for formal explanations, public retractions, and the recording of the offender’s details on an official public log.

The third and most serious category, ‘severe violations’, targets actions deemed to cause profound societal or legal harm. These encompass disclosing the identity of child victims or survivors of sexual violence, inciting communal or religious hatred, character assassination, contempt of court, or compromising national security. In such cases, the council could recommend the suspension of state benefits and government advertising, as well as the suspension of press credentials for up to one year.

Section 24(6) outlines these proportional penalties, while Section 26 opens the door for individuals whose dignity, reputation or property is damaged by published content to seek monetary compensation through district courts. Section 27 provides a judicial safeguard: affected parties may appeal council decisions to the High Court within 35 days, ensuring that administrative rulings are subject to independent review.

History of Contested Media Regulation

Efforts to overhaul media regulation in Nepal have long been marked by political controversy. A 2019 Media Council Bill proposed fines ranging from 25,000 to 1 million Nepali rupees for ethical breaches, along with mandatory qualification examinations for journalists. Widespread protests forced the removal of the most contentious provisions during parliamentary deliberations.

A subsequent draft in 2024 replaced direct financial penalties with reprimands, mandatory apologies, credential suspensions and recommendations to freeze government benefits. That bill, however, lapsed on 12 September 2025 when then-Prime Minister Sushila Karki dissolved the House of Representatives. The current proposal builds on elements of the 2024 version while introducing additional structural changes.

Media organisations have repeatedly stressed the need for genuine consultation. Nitu Pandit, vice-president of the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ), argued that the draft undervalues established stakeholders. “Federation of Nepali Journalists is an established institution and its role must not be devalued,” she said. “The bill must embody the spirit of consultation and coordination with the federation in formulation of the code of conduct.”

Structural Concerns Over Autonomy

Although the draft presents the Media Council as an autonomous regulatory body, critics contend that its composition preserves significant executive influence. The proposed three-member executive council would include a chairperson and two members. Appointments would be overseen by a recommendation committee led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, alongside the communications minister and a government-nominated media expert with at least 15 years of experience. The Director General of the Department of Information and Broadcasting would serve as an ex-officio member.

Shiva Gaunle, a former FNJ president, warned that the structure risks turning the council into an instrument of state oversight rather than an independent regulator. “If this draft bill becomes law in its present form, the Media Council will be neither capable nor autonomous,” he said. “In a three-member council, one member is a government officer, and the government can remove the remaining two officials at any time under the pretext of ‘lack of efficiency’.”

A new 15-member Directive Committee has been introduced, intended to broaden representation by including the FNJ president, university professors, human rights experts, IT specialists, media representatives and audience delegates. Yet the ministry’s power to nominate seven media representatives has raised fears of continued state overreach. Kundan Aryal, head of the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism at Tribhuvan University, urged lawmakers to keep the working body lean and transparent, emphasising that appointments must prioritise suitability over political convenience.

Pandit echoed calls for stronger safeguards, arguing that the Media Council should possess the authority to frame its own bylaws to ensure true independence.

Broader Context of Press Freedom Challenges

The draft emerges at a time when Nepal’s media landscape faces multiple pressures. Journalists have reported persistent economic difficulties, including delayed salaries, while relations between the government and private media outlets have periodically deteriorated over issues such as advertising allocation. Earlier attempts to regulate social media platforms, including registration requirements and content restrictions, have similarly fuelled debates about the balance between accountability and free expression.

International observers and domestic advocates have long highlighted the importance of aligning media laws with constitutional guarantees of press freedom and international standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Previous government positions that declined to fully revise media-related bills in line with these commitments have kept concerns alive.

Stakeholder Demands

The ministry has invited public feedback on the draft, signalling an opportunity for further revisions. Media rights groups are pressing for clearer demarcations between traditional media and social platforms, transparent appointment processes, and explicit protections for editorial independence. They also call for coordination among the multiple media-related bills currently under discussion, including those addressing broader communications regulation and social media management.

The developments in Nepal illustrate a familiar tension across many democracies: the challenge of establishing effective self-regulation and accountability mechanisms without creating tools that could be used to constrain critical reporting. The outcome of this consultation process will help determine whether the proposed Media Council strengthens professional standards or becomes another arena for political influence over the press.