Writ Petition Filed in Supreme Court Against TikTok Ban in Nepal

The decision of the Council of Ministers to ban TikTok has been challenged by filing a writ petition in the Supreme Court. Advocate Dinesh Tripathi filed the writ on Friday, and the registration process for the writ is underway. The writ mentions that the decision to ban TikTok is against constitutional democracy, civil rights, and freedom as per the rule of law. Tripathi claims that the government's decision to ban TikTok, made during the meeting of the Council of Ministers on November 13, 2023, is infringing on freedom of expression as well.

What is the meaning of a writ petition?

A writ petition encompasses a meticulously crafted written appeal presented before a court or governmental institution seeking a particular legal resolution. This legal document highlights the petitioner's grievances or apprehensions and solicits the court or authority to undertake suitable action. Writ petitions prevail predominantly in judicial systems that acknowledge the provision of writs - commands issued by a superior court to an inferior court, public authority, or official, instructing them to execute a particular act or rectify an incorrect action.

Several categories of writs exist, each meant for a specific objective. A few prevalent types of writs are as follows:

• Habeas Corpus: Employed to safeguard an individual's entitlement to personal freedom by contesting illicit detention or incarceration.
• Mandamus: Dispensed to obligate a public official or entity to carry out a responsibility they are lawfully bound to fulfill.
• Prohibition: Inhibits a lower court or tribunal from surpassing its jurisdiction or functioning beyond its authorized limits.
• Certiorari: Commands a lower court to forward the annals of a case for examination by a superior court to verify adherence to legal protocols.
• Quo Warranto: Contests the legitimacy of an individual occupying public office and demands clarification regarding the authority they possess in that position.

 In the context of this case, the individual filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the government's decision to ban TikTok, seeking legal intervention or remedy for the perceived infringement of constitutional rights as per the right granted by Nepal's constitution under section 46/133(2)(3). The petition further mentions that Article 17(2)(ka) of the Constitution of Nepal ensures every Nepali citizen the freedom of opinion and expression, Article 19 guarantees the right to communication, and Article 27 protects the right to information.

What may constitute various outcomes of a writ petition?

The conclusion of a writ petition relies on several aspects, encompassing the distinct legal contentions presented, relevant laws, and the court's elucidation of those laws. Here are some potential consequences:

• Granting of Relief: The court may concede the remission requested in the writ petition. For instance, if the petitioner disputes illegal detention through a writ of habeas corpus, the court may command the detained individual's liberation.
• Denial of Relief: The court may reject the desired relief in the writ petition. The tribunal might ascertain that there is no legal foundation for the petitioner's assertions or that the government or authority's actions are lawful.
• Modification or Adjustment: Occasionally, the court may modify or alter the sought relief. If the petitioner appeals for the revocation of an order, the court may modify it to ensure its legal validity.
• Legal Interpretation: The court may offer a legal interpretation of pertinent laws or constitutional provisions. Even without granting the specific relief requested, this analysis can establish legal precedents for forthcoming cases.
• Refusal to Entertain: The court might decline to address the writ petition if it concludes that the petitioner lacks standing (the legal entitlement to initiate a case) or that the matter is non-justiciable (not under the court's purview).
• Directive Orders: The court may issue precise directives to relevant authorities, such as ordering them to reconsider a verdict or adhere to due process.

In the context of this case, the Supreme Court will follow any one of the outcomes, as it is based on case to case basis.