The Supreme Court has ruled that government advertising cannot be used as a means to punish media outlets that criticize the government.
In its order issued against the government’s decision to stop providing government advertisements to private media, the Supreme Court interpreted that advertisements cannot be used as a tool to punish or reward anyone.
On July 14, a bench of Justices Nripa Dhwaj Niraula and Sharanga Subedi overturned the decision to place government advertisements exclusively in state-owned media.
“The decision of April 1, 2026, cannot be considered to be in accordance with the Constitution and the law as it adversely affects the right to communication and, ultimately, the exercise of the freedom of thought and expression,” the order said. “As the aforementioned controversial decision and correspondence made by the secretary at the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers cannot be sustained, they are hereby quashed.”
The Supreme Court said that the government cannot adopt subjective or discriminatory criteria when distributing public advertisements.
“Although receiving public advertisements is not an inherent right of any media outlet, the state cannot adopt subjective or discriminatory criteria when distributing public advertisements. Public resources must be distributed on the basis of objective, transparent, and equitable criteria,” the order said.
The bench also cited a precedent set by Argentina’s Supreme Court.
“The interpretation that the state must adopt equal and objective criteria in the distribution of public advertisements is noteworthy here, as subjective and discriminatory distribution of government advertisements creates an indirect restriction on freedom of expression,” the order said. “It is found that the court made it clear in the decision that government advertisements cannot be used as a means to punish media outlets that criticize the government or reward media outlets that support it."
The Constitution guarantees freedom of press and expression. However, withholding government advertisements from media outlets could indirectly restrict the media sector, the Supreme Court said.
The court said that restrictions could be imposed not only through direct bans but also through economic, administrative or regulatory means.
“Press freedom is not merely a professional right of media outlets, their operators or journalists; it is also a constitutional mechanism that guarantees citizens’ right to information and democratic accountability,” the order said. “Therefore, not only direct restrictions imposed by the state on media outlets, but also indirect control exercised through economic, administrative or regulatory means, are subject to scrutiny under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to communication.”
In its written response to the Supreme Court, the government had said that the decision to place advertisements only in state-owned media was made for austerity and transparency.
The Supreme Court, however, said that such administrative or policy decisions must also be made within the limits of the Constitution and the law.
“It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that any administrative or policy decision must remain subject to the Constitution and the law. Even when the objective is justified in public administration, the means adopted to achieve it must be constitutional and lawful; otherwise, such a decision is considered subjective, arbitrary, and beyond the authority’s jurisdiction,” the order said.
On April 1, the government decided that all government agencies – including the federal, provincial, and local governments, their subordinate bodies and all public entities operating with public funds – would publish and broadcast government advertisements and notices only through the Gorkhapatra Corporation, Radio Nepal, Nepal Television, and other state-owned media outlets.
The Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers circulated the directive to all government agencies following a decision at the secretary level.
Advocate Ananta Raj Luintel, on behalf of the Nepal Media Society, filed a writ petition against the decision on April 6. The Media Society represents publishers of major media outlets, including national dailies.
In the petition, the Media Society alleged that the decision to withhold government advertisements from private media was intended to undermine the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
