A full bench comprising nine judges of the Supreme Court has issued an order in the name of the government regarding social media, online media and court information collection.

Releasing the full text of the verdict on 13th October 2081 on Friday, the Supreme Court has asked to make necessary standards for the publication and broadcasting of court information. The bench of then Chief Justice Vishwambhar Prasad Shrestha, Justice Prakashman Singh Raut, Justices Sapna Pradhan Malla, Prakash Kumar Dhungana, Hariprasad Phuyal, Nahkul Subedi, Vinod Sharma, Mahesh Sharma Paudel and Balkrishna Dhakal asked to organize everything from public media to YouTube. 

'To prepare the necessary criteria to make the work of judicial information and news transmitted through online, social network and any media in order to maintain the dignity, respect, public faith and credibility of the judiciary to be orderly, dignified and effective, to direct the chief registrar of this court and media persons affiliated with the court in this regard', the full text of the judgment says. Similarly, the judgment says that online and social media platforms must be registered before operating. 

'online and social media platform before operation  To register with the authority and make the necessary legal arrangements so that it can be regulated by the regulatory bodies including the Press Council,'' the full text of the judgment says, 'To develop the capacity of the Press Council and to protect and promote the freedom of the press in a more advanced manner, take necessary actions for the policy, legal and structural reforms of the press sector.' 

The Supreme Court has prescribed three actions for this . The Supreme Court's working, language and procedures are technically  Due to its nature, there is a possibility that the verdict will be misinterpreted and false information will be spread. The Government is discussing the Media Council Bill and the Information Technology and Cyber Security Bill in the Parliament, and the Supreme Court has explained that strict regulation will be arranged during the controversy. 

It is equally important to discourage the act of spreading wrong information . Just as the state must protect the right to freedom of expression and communication, misinformation and disinformation  And it is also the responsibility of the state to control false information such as goods information,' it is said in full text, 'Since the flow of false information is unfair and inappropriate, it is desirable to discourage such an act . In addition, if there is wrong information about the work done by the court or the order issued by the court, it will create a situation of distrust towards the entire justice system.' 

It is said in the order of the Supreme Court to send a letter to the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers and the Press Council to make necessary arrangements for policy, legal and structural reforms in the press sector.  

The communication policy of the Supreme Court in full text is to broadcast fair, reliable, official and realistic information in a professional manner in a restrained and dignified language without harming the dignity, respect and public faith of the judiciary. Broadcasting of news, information, comments or articles should be discouraged. 

News that flows more widely and quickly through electronic media than traditional media 'viral'  In order to reach the general public, it is said in the full text that such media should be regulated and organized because the visual and audio of YouTube present the news in an attractive way. "False news is spread through such channels." When false information is spread through such means, it also affects the right of citizens to get correct information," the full text of the judgment says,  "When false information is disseminated through such means, it has an adverse effect on the public faith and credibility of the court and hinders the judicial process. Therefore, online and social media platforms of domestic or foreign origin must be registered with the authorities before operation, and digital media and social media should also be responsible and accountable by evaluating and monitoring such unwanted content.' 

It is also stated in the decision to discourage the act of abusing the social network by hiding one's real identity under a pseudonym/fictitious name. The court has also issued instructions on behalf of the government to ensure reliable monitoring by the regulatory agencies and to make other necessary arrangements in this matter without delay.