While sweeping provisions with hefty fines and jail terms are hugely problematic, the drafting of the document without broader consultation is equally troubling.
– By Sanjeev Satgainya
On January 30, as Nepal marked Martyrs’ Day to honor those who sacrificed their lives for democracy, a debate raged over the government’s latest move that could potentially stifle free speech—the very cornerstone of democracy they fought for.
A bill registered by the government in the upper house of the federal parliament to regulate the use and operation of social media in Nepal contains some sweeping provisions, including fines of up to Rs. 1.5 million and jail terms of up to five years, or both, that may have significant implications for freedom of expression.
The government says the “Bill related to Operation, Use and Regulation of Social Media Nepal,” registered by Communications and Information Technology Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung, aims to enact laws to make the operation and use of social media sites disciplined, safe and systematic. It also seeks to regulate them by holding operators and users responsible and accountable to promote social harmony, cultural tolerance and good governance.”
The bill states that once the new laws are enacted and implemented, there will be a significant improvement in information safety and the privacy of personal details. It also mandates social media companies to register in Nepal. The need for introducing the bill stems from the fact that, despite the proliferation of social media in Nepal, the country lacks specific laws to regulate them.
While the need for laws regulating social media cannot be overruled, given the rise of misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and other online threats, some of the bill’s provisions are so vague and convoluted that they could be weaponized at the government’s discretion to suppress free speech.
For example, Section 18 of the bill states: No one shall do or cause to do anything that may have an adverse impact on Nepal’s sovereignty, geographical integrity, national security, national unity, independence, self-respect, or national interest, or on cordial relations between federal units. Nor shall anyone transmit or cause to transmit anything that could incite hate or conflict based on class, caste, religion, culture, region, or community. Anyone violating this provision faces up to five years in jail, a fine of up to Rs. 500,000, or both.
At first glance, this may seem justified. However, such abstract and overarching terms are open to interpretation. If the government deems a post or comment related to these matters ill-suited, it could press criminal charges against the user.
Similarly, Section 19 defines “cyberbullying” as messaging, posting, or sharing wrong or harmful sentences, words, letters, images, signs, pictures, sketches, photos, audio, video, audiovisuals, symbols, or messages, or harassing, threatening, intimidating, defaming, or spreading rumors about someone in cyberspace through social media. The section prescribes jail terms of up to two years and fines of up to Rs. 300,000.
What’s troubling is that even sharing content—if deemed a criminal offense under the bill—could lead to penalties, effectively criminalizing mere reposts.
Several such provisions in the bill are vague and open-ended, making them susceptible to misuse by the government—not just against social media users but also against the press.
The line between regulation and suppression has been blurred with the use of generalized language, which could be misused to extend control over areas traditionally overseen by the Press Council, a statutory autonomous body that has, until now, been tasked with upholding the standards of a free press.
The Federation of Nepali Journalists, the umbrella body of journalists in Nepal, stated on January 30 that it has taken serious note of some provisions in the bill that go against freedom of speech and the press.
Similarly, Freedom Forum, a non-governmental organisation dedicated to the institutionalisation of democracy and the protection and promotion of human rights, stated that while social media content should be regulated, criminalising provisions could be misused, discouraging critical voices in a democratic society.
There, however, are some issues that the bill has tried to address. The bill has prescribed penalties and jail terms for hacking IDs and information, phishing and impostor, sextortion and extortion, spreading fake and misleading content. The bill has provisioned additional penalties for those engaging in such activities using children and minors.
But the major concern is that the government is attempting to introduce a blanket law with some objectionable provisions which could have a bearing on freedom of speech and press. And the timing could not be more suspect. The bill comes amid growing public anger over governance failures and poor service delivery, while the state is increasingly turning vindictive toward its own citizens.
Against this backdrop, the real danger lies not just in the move but in the motive—not just in the bill’s provisions, but in the government’s intent. The hefty fines and jail terms could result in self-censorship—not just among social media users but also within the press.
What’s surprising is that the government claims to have taken cues from India and Bangladesh while drafting the bill, an ironic choice in itself, given that both countries have faced severe criticism for suppressing dissent through similar laws. It is baffling that the bill’s drafters overlooked how Bangladesh’s draconian 2018 digital laws led to the suppression of free speech and press and ultimately contributed to Sheikh Hasina’s downfall.
Lest Nepal’s policymakers forget, free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. It empowers citizens to challenge authority, hold officials accountable, and engage in constructive debate without the fear of retribution. Without it, democracy becomes a hollow concept, where government actions are unchecked, and public discourses are shaped by the state narrative.
In the name of regulating social media, the government’s attempt to “control” free speech will not only push Nepali society towards regression but also tarnish Nepal’s image as South Asia’s most open society for free expression. Nepal cannot truly call itself a democracy unless it upholds its citizens’ fundamental right to free speech, as guaranteed by the constitution.
If the bill is enacted in its current form without revisions, it will also restrict the press, which plays a crucial role in fostering an informed and democratic society.
Moreover, the government has entirely bypassed the democratic process by failing to hold broader discussions with stakeholders before registering the bill in the upper house.
Only a well-designed — and clearly articulated — law could curb online threats without turning social media into a minefield where any criticism of authority is deemed a criminal act. Instead of vague and loosely defined provisions, the government could craft targeted regulations that protect citizens from harm while safeguarding their right to dissent.
Hence, broader discussions and fundamental revisions are imperative. Any law, especially one that directly affects fundamental rights, must undergo public debate before passing through parliament.
An open dialogue and public discourse among stakeholders ensure that laws are not drafted in isolation and reflect the concerns, needs and safeguards necessary for a democratic society. If bulldozed without broader discussions and changes, such a bill could become a tool of suppression, undermining trust in both the government and the legislative process.
The Federation has also urged the government and the federal parliament to revise the bill after broader and deeper consultation and proceed only if its provisions align with international human rights standards, freedom of the press and expression, Nepal’s constitutional provisions and prevailing practices.
“Any law that seeks to curtail freedom of the press and speech will be unacceptable,” the Federation stated.
– Sanjeev Satgainya is a journalist and former editor, The Kathmandu Post. He currently writes for The Hindu, and is a columnist for Nepali media outlets—Ukaalo.com, NepalViews.com.
