Rajbiraj: The District Administration Office (DAO) in Saptari has recently implemented regulations that restrict the capturing of photographs and videos within its premises.

Through an official notice, the DAO has explicitly prohibited individuals, including service seekers, journalists, and the general public, from capturing visual media within its office without obtaining prior authorization. This decision is motivated by concerns related to safeguarding the personal privacy rights of employees and the office's security sensitivity.

The notice, issued by Assistant Chief District Officer Levan Kashyap Adhikari, also underscores the possibility of legal repercussions if individuals breach this directive.

Taranath Dahal, former president of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists and current president of the Freedom Forum, provided insights into the matter, emphasizing that while the DAO has the right to request consideration for personal privacy in media coverage, it cannot outright prohibit access to public offices.

Dahal highlighted that public offices are inherently open spaces, and the legislation pertaining to the right to personal privacy includes exceptions that permit the capturing and utilization of photographs taken within public areas for mass media purposes. He further stressed the significance of obtaining consent from relevant parties when employing such images in journalistic reporting.

Dahal additionally asserted that employing personal privacy as a means to obstruct the coverage of corrupt practices and service delivery is misguided. He questioned the intentions behind such measures and called for governmental institutions to uphold transparency in their operations.

Vipul Pokharel, the current president of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists, expressed strong criticism towards the administration's decision. He argued that these restrictions contradict the fundamental principles of press freedom.

Pokharel noted that analogous provisions in the Civil Code and Criminal Code had been challenged by the Federation of Journalists, leading to the acknowledgment by the state that these provisions do not apply to journalistic activities. He highlighted the inconsistency between the state's stance and the global standards of press freedom, concluding that such restrictions should not be imposed. He further questioned the authorities' reluctance to ensure transparency in their endeavors.