High Court Issues Interim Order to Protect Identity of Children

Emphasizing the legal provision requiring the confidentiality of the identity of children accused of criminal offenses, the High Court Tulsipur, Nepalgunj Bench, has issued an interim order directing that the name, photograph, or video of children taken into custody during investigation must not be made public.

The bench of Honorable Judge Dal Bahadur KC issued the order pursuant to Section 158(1) of the Muluki Civil Procedure Code, 2017, and Rule 42(1) of the High Court Regulations, 2016, instructing the concerned police offices and other respondent bodies to implement it immediately, according to Advocate Basanta Gautam.

Following a preliminary hearing, the court has also issued a show-cause order to the respondents, asking them to present any grounds, reasons, or evidence as to why the order sought by the petitioner should not be issued. As per the order, the respondents must submit their written response within 15 days from the date of service of notice, excluding travel time.

The order was issued in the context of a public interest litigation related to the right to a fair hearing, effective implementation of juvenile justice, the right to privacy, and the protection of detainees’ rights. The writ petition was filed on Baisakh 2 by the Public Interest Law Practitioners’ Group.

During the preliminary hearing held on April 16, the court reviewed the documents attached to the case file and heard arguments from Senior Advocates Sunil Kumar Shrestha and Lok Bahadur Shah, as well as Advocates Basanta Gautam, Bal Bahadur Chand, Bishwajit Tiwari, Bikash Acharya, Sunita Sharma, Pawan Kumar Gupta, and Harikesh Barma.

Among the writ petitioners were Advocate Bikash Acharya, member of INSEC’s Executive Committee; Advocate Basanta Gautam, Lumbini Province Coordinator of Advocacy Forum; Bhola Mahat, INSEC Lumbini Province Coordinator; Advocate Bal Bahadur Chand; Advocate Bishwajit Tiwari; Advocate Sunita Sharma; Advocate Suresh Kumar Gautam; Advocate Kebal Singh Tharu; and human rights activist Shailendra Kumar Baishya. The writ has named the District Administration Offices of Banke and Bardiya, the District Police Offices of Banke and Bardiya, various quasi-judicial bodies, and the concerned ministries of the Government of Nepal as respondents.

The petition points out procedural shortcomings in quasi-judicial bodies, such as failure to constitute benches in accordance with the law, publication of cause lists, denial of the opportunity for parties to be heard, issuance of decisions without reasoning, and failure to mention the right to appeal. It further argues that practices such as publicly disclosing individuals arrested during investigations before their guilt is proven, extracting statements under pressure in custody, and publishing materials that reveal the identity of children have undermined the right to a fair hearing and the right to privacy, as stated by Advocate Bikash Acharya, a member of INSEC’s Executive Committee.

The writ petition is grounded on legal provisions including Articles 18, 20, 21, 46, and 144 of the Constitution of Nepal, the Administration of Justice Act, 2016, and the Muluki Civil Procedure Code, 2017, as well as relevant international human rights treaties.

Through an interim order, the petitioners have requested that quasi-judicial bodies be directed to follow due legal procedures, refrain from disclosing the identity of arrested individuals, and prevent the extraction of statements under coercion. Additionally, through a writ of mandamus, they have sought directives to the concerned ministries to undertake necessary policy and structural reforms, implement the principles of juvenile benches, and ensure fair hearings.

According to the writ petitioner Advocate Basanta Gautam, although prior initiatives had been taken with the concerned authorities to bring about reforms, effective changes were not achieved, ultimately necessitating recourse to the court, as stated by Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar Shrestha.

The present case is being viewed as a significant test of Nepal’s criminal justice system, the functioning of quasi-judicial bodies, and the implementation of the right to a fair hearing.