Nepal tables bill to tab social media despite fear of censorship

Kathmandu [Nepal], February 10 (ANI): Nepal has moved forward with the controversial "Social Media Bill" despite claims of attempted censorship and curtailment of Freedom of Expression and Speech.
Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Prithvi Subba Gurung tabled the Bill in the National Assembly on Sunday despite criticism from opposition and social media users.
"In order to systematize, limit and for safety, formulation of special law for social media has been practiced all across the globe. In Nepal as well, development in field of Information Communication Technology (ICT), the use of social media is rising. Making right and proper application of social media, social harmony, cultural tolerance and promotion of good governance, by making the social media operators and users responsible by making it limited, secure and organized; to regulate it law is required," Minister Gurung said as he tabled the bill in the upper house.
The Bill has proposed the provisions for license (with a two-year validity) for any companies, firms or institutions to operate digital platforms and renewal of the permission, granting the rights to authorities concerned to ban on the operation of such platforms and the remove the contents in violations of the terms and conditions. It has proposed conditions for the users of social sites as well.
The opposition as well as the social media users have been claiming these provisions clandestinely attempt to impose censorship and curtail the basic human rights. Earlier, last week, former Education Minister and member of parliament from Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Sumana Shrestha dragged attention of government to discuss the bill with public before moving forward in meeting of the lower house of parliament.
"While drafting the bills has there been any consultations and discussions with those whom it is meant for? It again has been proven, whether it is left, right or the center aligned that no one really cares what people want. I want the government to pay attention to this issue and request them to call the youths, talk with them and listen to the voice of people," Shrestha said.
The bill has disapproved the social media contents capable of hurting the dignity of others, trolling, hate speech and distortion of information. Similarly, post, like, repost, live streaming, subscribe, comment, tag, hashtag or mention with wrong intention is liable to fine up to Nepali Rupees (NRs) 500 thousand to users of social sites.
Debate has arisen over the provision fearing repercussions from the government and senior post officials as it intends to ban on satirical contents.
"Now, by bringing the Social Media Regulation Bill, you are trying to legally control freedom of expression and press? Are you above the sovereignty of the citizen? Above the constitution? Are you the master and the citizens the slave? The bill currently registered in the parliament for the operation, use and regulation of social media is objectionable. In the name of regulating social media, it not only stifles the constitutional right of citizens to freedom of expression, but also controls the freedom of the press. In this bill, citizens are being threatened with imprisonment and fines step by step," Pushpa Kamal Dahal, former Prime Minister and Chairman of the opposition CPN-Maoist Center said addressing a meeting of the House of Representatives last week.
The Clause 12 (H) of the introduced bill mandates users of social media to 'reveal their identity to the social media platforms in order to use the platform'. A section of the general public is hailing this clause as a step to ensure accountability for the effect of public opinions shared on social media while others are criticizing it for raging head-on against the people's right to privacy.
Similarly, Clause 12 (J) has divided opinion on whether it infringes on freedom of speech, privacy, and the right to communication. The clause states, "For the purpose of
investigating or inquiring into a crime, the details of a social media user must be provided to the concerned authorities.
This means that the users' privacy will not be safeguarded. The user will be required to submit all their data to the relevant regulatory body. Failure to comply could result in a penalty ranging from NRs 2.5 million to NRs 10 million.
Several provisions in the bill contradict Nepal's constitution, while vague and incomplete terminologies raise concerns. Critics fear the government will exploit these loopholes to interpret the law in its favor. Another major concern is the government's direct role as the plaintiff in all related cases, giving authorities greater control over how they define and enforce the law.
The bill requires a Rapid Response Team to handle such proceedings. Typically, authorities form these teams when immediate action is needed in the public interest, such as during natural disasters. However, the government has introduced a provision to create one specifically for this purpose.
The bill directly violates Articles 17 and 19 of the Constitution of Nepal. Article 17 guarantees the right to freedom, stating, "No person shall be deprived of personal liberty."
However, the bill does more than restrict personal freedom--it actively penalizes individuals for posting, sharing, liking, reposting, live streaming, subscribing, commenting, tagging, using hashtags, or mentioning others on social media.
Clause 16 (2) of the bill explicitly prohibits individuals from engaging in these activities with malicious intent: "One must not post, share, like, repost, live stream, subscribe, comment, tag, use hashtags, or mention others on social media with malicious intent."
While the bill clearly criminalizes liking or commenting, it fails to define "malicious intent" leaving its interpretation ambiguous. Since the bill does not clarify the term's scope or meaning, anyone accused under this provision could simply claim, "I had no malicious intent," making enforcement arbitrary and subjective.
The bill creates a loophole that allows government officials to potentially avoid accountability. If they act against the bill's provisions, they can claim, "I did not act with malicious intent," when the provision is invoked. Whether they can escape responsibility remains unclear. The bill also includes a provision that allows for a fine of up to NRs 5,00,000.
Article 19 of Nepal's Constitution guarantees the right to communication, stating, "No prior restriction shall be imposed on the publication or broadcast of any news, editorial, article, composition, or other written, audio, or audiovisual material through any medium such as electronic publishing, broadcasting, or printing."
Clause 19(2) clearly states, "No newspaper, radio, television, online, or any other type of digital or electronic equipment, printing press, or communication medium shall be shut down, seized, or deregistered, nor shall such content be seized for publishing, broadcasting, or printing news, articles, editorials, compositions, information, or other content." (ANI)