Nepal Police Detained Three Journalists; PM Office Disputes Police Account

Nepal's police took three journalists into custody during visits to newsrooms in Kathmandu on 30 October, then released them that evening after intervention from Prime Minister Balendra Shah, according to contemporaneous accounts and government statements reported by local news outlets. The police and the prime minister's office subsequently gave differing accounts of what prompted the operation.

The journalists were Bishwamani Subedi of Nepal Press, Shobharaj Baral of Motive News and Dhiraj Basnet of DNA Khabar. Officers also went to Naya Patrika seeking reporter Navaraj Mainali and visited Diyo Post looking for journalists. The Kathmandu Post reported that officers remained at Naya Patrika for nearly three hours without taking Mainali into custody.

A Nepal Police clarification circulated to journalists early on 31 October said the Cyber Bureau had called media workers in to establish the factual basis and legal grounds of reports concerning the police. Police spokesperson Abi Narayan Kafle attributed the move to concerns raised by the Prime Minister's Office about coverage the police considered inaccurate and potentially damaging to public confidence in the force. That is the police's explanation, not an independently established account of who ordered the newsroom visits.

The Prime Minister's Office expressly denied prior knowledge or involvement. Shah's communications adviser, Dipa Dahal, said the prime minister instructed authorities to free the journalists and stop entering newsrooms or taking action against reporters there once he learned of the detentions. Information and Communications Minister Bikram Timilsina separately confirmed on 30 October that the detained journalists had been released and reiterated the government's stated commitment to press freedom.

Disagreement over detention and procedure

The police's Cyber Bureau described its action as questioning rather than arrest. That terminology is disputed by newsroom staff and journalists' representatives who described people being taken from their workplaces by plainclothes officers. The precise legal basis for each intervention, any formal complaint, whether arrest warrants were issued and the identity of the officials who authorised the visits remain material unanswered questions.

At Naya Patrika, journalists said the visiting officers did not produce a warrant or complaint document. Press Council Nepal publicly questioned the lack of disclosed legal grounds and court authorisation, according to The Kathmandu Post. These statements are allegations about procedure and official criticism; they are not court findings that a particular officer committed a crime.

The Federation of Nepali Journalists condemned the operations. Its president, Nirmala Sharma, called for accountability and said the government should identify those responsible if the Prime Minister's Office had not ordered the actions. The ruling Rastriya Swatantra Party also criticised using law enforcement against newsrooms over published reporting.

The underlying articles concerned senior police and judicial figures. Claims made in those separate reports have not been independently verified for this article, and the detention of journalists neither proves nor disproves the underlying allegations.

What the record establishes

Three named journalists were taken into police custody on 30 October and released the same day. Police confirmed questioning; the prime minister's office denied ordering or knowing about the operation beforehand; and journalists' organisations objected to the newsroom interventions. These are separate, attributable facts and statements, not evidence that the prime minister directed the detentions or that the police's stated explanation has been judicially tested.

A follow-up requires the police's original written orders or case registration, any warrant or summons, the Cyber Bureau's legal justification, and any subsequent inquiry, court decision or disciplinary outcome. Any such material development should be reported with the government's response and the journalists' accounts, rather than presenting the unresolved question of authorisation as an established conclusion.