KATHMANDU / Nepal’s Supreme Court has ruled that the police investigation and detention of journalist Kishor Shrestha cannot, at this stage, be characterised as unlawful, but ordered authorities to release him from custody and continue the investigation while keeping him on an attendance guarantee or regular reporting schedule.

A joint bench of Justices Dr Nahakul Subedi and Balkrishna Dhakal heard the habeas corpus petition on Monday. The same two-judge bench had been assigned to hear the challenge to Shrestha’s detention.

The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition seeking his release on the ground of alleged illegal detention, while simultaneously issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Kathmandu District Police Range to investigate him without keeping him in continued police custody.

The ruling means that Shrestha is to be released from detention, but the criminal investigation against him may continue. Several Nepali media outlets reported Monday evening that the Supreme Court had directed authorities to free Shrestha and proceed with the investigation while keeping him on attendance guarantee or court dates.

Court Finds Legal Basis for Arrest and Investigation

According to the court’s reasoning, a complaint had been filed against Shrestha and police subsequently obtained an arrest warrant from the Kathmandu District Court under the procedures provided by Nepal’s National Criminal Procedure Code, 2017.

Because the arrest had been authorised by a court and police had subsequently obtained judicial permission to keep him in custody for investigation, the Supreme Court concluded that his detention could not simply be declared illegal through habeas corpus proceedings.

Shrestha, the editor of Jana Aastha Weekly, was arrested from his residence in Lalitpur on the night of August 12 by a joint police team. Police said he was being investigated over an alleged offence under Nepal’s Privacy Act, 2018.

The Kathmandu District Court initially authorised police to hold him for three days. On Monday, before he was taken to the Supreme Court for the habeas corpus hearing, the district court granted police an additional four days of custody for further investigation.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent order effectively ended the need for continued custodial investigation.

Wife Had Challenged Arrest as Illegal

Shrestha’s wife, Saraswati Shrestha, filed the habeas corpus petition arguing that her husband had been unlawfully arrested and detained and seeking his immediate release.

During an initial hearing on August 14, Justice Balkrishna Dhakal ordered authorities to produce Shrestha before the Supreme Court on Monday along with the investigation file and electronic devices seized from his residence and office.

Police had seized items including computers, laptops, an iPad and mobile phones during the investigation. The Supreme Court had specifically asked that the seized materials and the complaint underlying the investigation be presented to the bench.

Privacy Dispute to Be Decided in Regular Criminal Proceedings

A key aspect of Monday’s ruling is the Supreme Court’s distinction between the legality of Shrestha’s detention and the separate question of whether the material published by Jana Aastha actually violated an individual’s right to privacy.

The court said the question of whether the publication amounted to an unlawful infringement of personal privacy should be determined by the competent court if prosecutors ultimately file a criminal case.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not rule on Shrestha’s guilt or innocence in the alleged privacy violation.

Instead, it concluded that such factual and legal questions should not be finally determined through the extraordinary jurisdiction of a habeas corpus petition.

The decision therefore allows police to continue gathering evidence and permits prosecutors to decide whether there is sufficient ground to bring charges, while preventing Shrestha from being kept in custody merely for the continuation of the investigation.

Case Sparks Debate Over Press Freedom and Privacy

Shrestha’s arrest triggered a broader debate in Nepal over the boundaries between press freedom, criminal investigation and the constitutional right to privacy.

Journalists and media organisations protested the arrest, with the Federation of Nepali Journalists and other groups arguing that disputes arising from published news content should be handled with particular sensitivity because of constitutional protections for freedom of the press.

At the same time, women’s rights and human-rights groups have stressed that freedom of expression does not eliminate an individual’s right to privacy. Nepal’s Constitution recognises privacy as a fundamental right, while the Privacy Act provides statutory protection for personal information, photographs, videos and aspects of private life.

The controversy has therefore developed into a wider discussion over how Nepal should balance two constitutionally important interests: the freedom of journalists to report matters of public interest and the right of individuals to protection from unjustified intrusion into their private lives.

Release Does Not End the Case

The Supreme Court’s order is significant because it does not amount to the termination of the investigation or an acquittal of Shrestha.

Rather, the court has allowed the investigative process to continue while concluding that continued detention is unnecessary.

Shrestha may now be required to appear before investigators when summoned or remain on a regular reporting schedule while police complete their investigation.

Whether any criminal prosecution will ultimately be filed—and whether the Jana Aastha publication legally constituted a violation of privacy—will depend on the evidence gathered by investigators and any subsequent proceedings before the competent court.

The ruling thus draws an important legal distinction: the Supreme Court did not declare the police investigation illegal, but it also found no need to keep the journalist behind bars while that investigation continues.