Kantipur daily Editor-in-Chief Sudheer Sharma has recorded his statement at the Supreme Court (SC) on a contempt of court case against Kantipur publications. The apex court bench sought statement from Sharma for about three hours.

The court began questing Sharma from 10am and continued till 2pm. The bench asked him 32 questions and Sharma also furnished 32-page long written reply.

In his answer, Sharma said that Kantipur daily didn’t have any intention to contempt the court and made it clear that the news published in the daily had not dishonoured the court. He submitted documents to the bench that were taken as sources for writing the news. He also admitted publishing news in the daily regarding the controversies about Chief Justice’s qualification.

The bench adjourned for a snakcs break at 2pm. After the break, the bench will hear statement from Chairman and Managing Director Kailash Sirohiya and journalist Krishna Gyawali. Earlier on Sunday, the court heard from Kantipur Publications Director Swastika Sirohiya. A division bench of Justices Bam Kumar Shrestha and Damber Bahadur Shahi has been hearing the case against Kantipur.

Kantipur team returned on Monday after marking court attendance after the cancellations of all court proceedings following the demise of former SC Justice Ramnagina Singh.

Chairman and Managing Director of Kantipur Media Group Kailash Sirohiya, Director Swastika Sirohiya, Kantipur Editor-in-Chief Sudheer Sharma and reporter Krishna Gyawali have been made defendants in the contempt of court case.

The SC on Wednesday had issued a subpoena to Kantipur in the contempt of court case, ordering four Kantipur members to appear at the court in person within 72 hours of receiving the summon.

A single bench of Chief Justice Gopal Prasad Parajuli had issued the interim order on February 25, directing the Press Council Nepal to probe the news reports published by Kantipur that highlighted discrepancies in his birth date as shown by his official documents.

National and international journalists’ bodies have condemned the move calling it a clear case of ‘prior censorship’ and against the principle of natural justice which demands that the chief justice stay away from the case involving himself.