Reviewing The Media Council Bill

The Media Council Bill, initially registered in the parliament five years ago and widely criticised for its 'anti-press freedom' provisions, was re-registered at the National Assembly on April 25, 2024, with significant amendments. Despite improvements, the Bill still includes elements that apparently undermine press freedom elements. This article reviews the latest amendments, considering local needs and global practices, and provides feedback to better align the Bill with the true philosophy and purpose of the council.

The current amendment to the Bill excludes social media platforms and websites of print and digital media from its oversight, along with audience comments on news portals and social media platforms run by media houses. In contrast, countries like Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK include social media content from media outlets and, in some cases, public comments on media websites under their Media Council's oversight. Additionally, there is an international practice of including content from news agencies under the council's purview, even if not republished by media houses. Nepal should consider these practices when amending the Bill being deliberated in the National Assembly.

Key features 

In Section 2, which addresses the formulation of the Council and its role and responsibilities, the word "free" is surprisingly absent, despite "fair," "dignified," "accountable," and "autonomous" being mentioned as key features of the Media Council in the Bill. This omission undermines the very essence of the Council. Without explicitly including "free," the Council cannot fully realise its intended purpose. Learning from international practices, it is crucial to incorporate this term into the Bill.

Similarly, Section 5, which outlines the roles, responsibilities, and rights of the Council, presents a long list of its works. But these list are vague and requires further breakdown. For instance, the Bill states that the Media Council advises the Nepal government while formulating policies relevant to mass communications.  However, it lacks clarity on how the Media Council will do this. Will the Media Council provide feedback on media policy upon request of the government or does it on its own proactively? Will it do so by submitting reports, engaging in consultations, in writing, or verbally? Will this be done officially or unofficially?  The approach of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to provide Nepal government the feedback on relevant policies can be a reference. NHRC provides feedback on draft policies upon government’s request. 

According to Section 6 of the Bill, the chairperson of the Media Council will be appointed by the government of Nepal. This is a serious flaw. Expecting the Media Council to be free and autonomous while having its chairperson appointed by the government is contradictory. Recruitment by government and independence of the entity cannot coexist. Therefore, an alternative arrangement is necessary to ensure the Council's independence. Making the Council responsible to the parliament rather than the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MoCIT) would be more appropriate. 

In India, the Chairperson is nominated by a committee consisting of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and a person elected by the members of the Council, with the nominations taking effect upon notification by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. This model can serve as a reference for Nepal's Media Council as well. 

Section 6 of the Bill outlines an 11-member Council, including a first-class gazetted officer from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, the President of the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ), seven media representatives from all provinces (with three women), and one media consumer representative. While the diverse representation is positive, the inclusion of a government-appointed officer raises concerns about the Council's independence.

Another major flaw in the Bill is the composition of the committee recommending the Council's chairperson and members. The committee, consisting of the Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and an independent expert, is dominated by government officials. This government’s influence likely compromises the Council’s independence. 

Furthermore, Section 9 grants authority to the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to dismiss the Council's chairperson and members for misconduct or failure to fulfil their duties, based on a committee investigation. This direct governmental involvement in hiring and firing key council members undermines the council's independence. Consequently, this provision prevents the council from effectively fulfilling its key roles, such as serving as a watchdog of the watchdogs, defending press freedom, and providing policy inputs to the government, among others. 

Section 7 of the Bill requires the Media Council chairperson and members to either meet Supreme Court judge qualifications or have a bachelor's degree with 15 years in journalism. This favours legal backgrounds over media expertise, despite the role being focused on media oversight. Internationally, the majority of Press Council chairpersons come from the media industry and academia, although some countries, like Sweden and Denmark, do include members of the judiciary, with judges serving as chairpersons. However, these examples are exceptions rather than the norm. Additionally, the Bill’s age criteria — 30 for members and 40 for the chairperson — assumes younger individuals lack leadership ability, which is a narrow perspective.

Code of Conduct

Chapter 4 of the Bill addresses the Code of Conduct (CoC), its implementation, and penalties. It requires media houses to develop their own CoC and editorial policies, provided they align with the Council's CoC. The Council will monitor both its own CoC and those of media organisations to prevent misuse and ensure responsible media practices. However, allowing media houses to create their own CoC may lead to conflicts with the Council’s interpretations, which should be considered before passing the Act.

The Bill overlooks the possibility of complainants wanting to file a case directly in court instead of through the Press Council. This needs further discussion. In other countries, complainants typically aren't required to avoid court when filing with a media council. Practices vary on how media councils handle complaints that are also in court. To align the Bill with its true purpose, it should include social media platforms and audience comments under its oversight, explicitly state "free" to ensure independence, define methods for policy input, adopt a parliamentary appointment process for the chairperson, prioritise media expertise in qualifications, reconsider age requirements, address potential conflicts from self-developed Codes of Conduct, and clarify the option for direct court cases to meet global standards.

(Pokharel is a media researcher. pokharel.umesh@gmail.com)