Digital Rights vs. State Control: Navigating the Future of Online Freedom in Nepal

Nepal finds itself at a critical juncture, wrestling with the complex interplay between expanding digital connectivity and increasing state control over online spaces. The sweeping social media ban in September 2025, which triggered widespread youth-led protests, brought to the forefront long-simmering concerns about digital censorship and the potential erosion of fundamental rights. This incident, while immediately about platform access, is deeply embedded in a broader regional and global debate about internet freedom, legal frameworks, and the future of democratic governance in the digital age.

The Catalyst: Nepal's Social Media Ban in September 2025

On September 4, 2025, the Government of Nepal ordered the shutdown of 26 social media platforms, including widely popular services like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Reddit, Signal, and Snapchat. This drastic measure was justified by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology on the grounds of national dignity, regulatory compliance, and sovereignty, citing the platforms' failure to register under new government rules. Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli framed the ban as a nationalist struggle, dismissing activists as "puppets" who were attempting to provoke society.

However, critics quickly alleged that the ban was primarily a response to a viral "Nepo Kid" campaign. This online trend exposed the lavish lifestyles of political elites' children, contrasting their "luxury cars, foreign degrees, Instagrammed holidays" with the economic struggles of ordinary Nepalis, many of whom are forced to seek work abroad. Slogans like "Our taxes, their luxury... We pay, you flex" resonated deeply, and many youths suspected the ban was a "cover-up dressed in nationalist rhetoric" to silence these online exposures.

The ban severely impacted daily life, disrupting communication, education, and business for millions of users who relied on these platforms as their "town square and press office". Small businesses, content creators, and the tourism industry, in particular, faced significant challenges, highlighting how social media serves as a political tool, a livelihood, and a space for free expression in Nepal.

Beyond the Ban: Existing and Proposed Legal Frameworks

The social media ban, while a stark event, is part of a larger pattern of increasing government control over Nepal's digital realm, shaped by existing laws and new legislative proposals.

1. The Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) 2008: This act serves as the primary law regulating online activity in Nepal. However, it has been widely criticized as a "blunt instrument for silencing dissent". Section 47 of the ETA criminalizes the publication of content deemed "illegal," "offensive," or "contrary to public morality," but critically, it fails to define these terms with legal precision. This ambiguity enables arbitrary enforcement, leading to punitive actions against individuals exercising their expressive rights.

   • For example, in June 2025, an arrest warrant was issued against senior journalist Dil Bhusan Pathak under the ETA for a YouTube episode that spotlighted financial irregularities linked to a prominent political family. The complaint alleged defamation and incitement of hate, sparking widespread condemnation as an assault on press freedom.
   • In August 2024, two youths were detained in Kailali for Facebook posts criticizing Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, accused of disturbing "social harmony".
   • The U.S. Department of State's 2023 human rights report noted that Nepal reportedly censored online content and relied on the ETA to penalize material deemed "contrary to public morality or offensive".

2. Nepal's National Criminal Code (2017): Defamation provisions within this code, particularly Sections 293–308, contain vague and subjective language, prohibiting expressions that "diminish personal or moral character" or provoke "contempt, disrespect, hatred, or ridicule". Such broad definitions provide avenues for discretionary enforcement and can suppress journalistic investigations into corruption or public misconduct.

3. Proposed Legislative Measures: Several new bills have generated serious concerns regarding the future of digital rights in Nepal, threatening to solidify state control over online speech.

   • The Social Media (Use, Operation, and Regulation) Bill (2025), tabled in the National Assembly, proposes stringent measures. It mandates that all social media platforms obtain a government-issued license within three months, with penalties for non-compliance ranging from Rs 2.5 million to Rs 10 million and a potential ban on operations.
   • For individual users, the bill outlines severe punishments for offenses like creating fake accounts, spreading misinformation, cyberbullying, hacking, phishing, deepfake content creation, and sextortion, with penalties ranging from heavy fines to multiple years of imprisonment. Public officials violating the law face a 50% increase in penalties.
   • A key concern is that the bill grants the government the power to order content removal without requiring court oversight. This unchecked authority could lead to arbitrary censorship of dissenting voices, investigative journalism, and politically inconvenient discourse.
   • The vague language used in defining offenses, such as "misleading information" or "national interest," is highly subjective and leaves room for broad government interpretation, raising the risk of constraining free expression.
   • Other proposed measures include the IT and Cyber Security Bill and the Mass Communication Council Bill (2023), which also contain provisions granting wide discretionary powers to state authorities to license, censor, or penalize online platforms, often without adequate procedural safeguards or judicial review.

Digital rights advocates warn that these measures, especially the lack of robust mechanisms for user education or data privacy, could have severe consequences. The push for real-name policies could backfire by deterring activists, whistleblowers, and marginalized groups who rely on anonymity for safety.

Erosion of Freedoms: Impacts on Expression, Press, and Civic Space

The combined effect of these legal frameworks and state interventions is a systematic erosion of online freedoms, manifesting in several critical ways:

1. Chilling Effect on Expression: Vague laws and harsh penalties create uncertainty over what constitutes lawful speech, leading to widespread self-censorship. In Nepal, social media users often self-censor their posts due to fear of legal repercussions under the ETA or proposed Social Media Regulation Bill. This widespread withdrawal from online debate fundamentally alters public behavior and hollows out the democratic ideal of an informed citizenry.

2. Suppression of Political Dissent and Civic Activism: Digital platforms have become essential spaces for civic organizing and youth-led activism, enabling marginalized groups to challenge narratives and demand justice. However, state authorities increasingly perceive online activism as a threat, responding with punitive measures that delegitimize dissent and discourage political engagement, especially among young and first-time voters.

3. Expansion of Surveillance and Platform Censorship: Nepal, India, and Bangladesh routinely demand content removals and access to user data from platforms, often using poorly defined concepts like "immoral," "anti-national," or "objectionable" content, and frequently without judicial authorization or public transparency. The Nepal Police Cyber Bureau has intensified monitoring using surveillance technologies to track politically sensitive speech. This environment fosters "privatized censorship," where platforms act as proxies for state regulation, often without adequate grievance redress mechanisms for users.

4. Erosion of Press Freedom and Artistic Satire: Journalists face defamation suits, criminal investigations, and arbitrary detention for exposing governmental or corporate malfeasance. Satirists and comedians have also experienced harassment, takedowns, and intimidation campaigns. In Nepal, proposals to extend Press Council Nepal oversight to independent YouTube channels have raised concerns over political bias and regulatory overreach.

Broader South Asian Context and Global Parallels

Nepal's experience is not isolated. Across South Asia, countries grapple with similar challenges in regulating online spaces, reflecting a regional pattern of digital authoritarianism. India, for example, leads the world in internet shutdowns and employs laws like the Information Technology Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to suppress online expression. Bangladesh, too, has seen its Digital Security Act (DSA) and subsequent Cyber Security Act (CSA) used to silence journalists and activists. These examples highlight the persistent tension between constitutional guarantees of free speech and the practical enforcement of restrictive laws in the region.

Globally, democracies face similar dilemmas, with governments justifying social media restrictions on grounds of national security, public order, or misinformation. However, empirical evidence suggests that such interventions often generate significant unintended consequences, including economic disruption, political backlash, and pervasive self-censorship. International human rights treaties, such as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), affirm the right to freedom of expression online, emphasizing that restrictions must be precisely defined by law, pursue a legitimate objective, and be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

The Path Forward: Recommendations for Safeguarding Digital Rights

To navigate this complex landscape and ensure a democratic, open digital future, a more sophisticated, nuanced, and rights-respecting approach is crucial.

1. Precision in Laws and Narrow Tailoring: Instead of blanket bans or overly broad prohibitions, regulations must be precisely defined and narrowly tailored to target specific, unlawful conduct. This ensures that lawful users are not inadvertently punished or excluded from vital platforms.

2. Transparency and Accountability: Both governments and private platforms should be required to publicly disclose detailed information about content takedown requests, blocking orders, removal decisions, and appeals processes. This fosters accountability, allows for independent oversight, and builds public trust.

3. Robust Legal and Judicial Oversight: Restrictions on digital speech must comply with constitutional norms and international human rights standards. Independent courts and human rights commissions should be empowered to review the legality and proportionality of government actions that limit online expression. The absence of judicial oversight, as seen in Nepal's proposed bills, risks arbitrary censorship.

4. Investing in Digital Literacy and Resilience: Governments should actively invest in digital literacy education, independent fact-checking initiatives, and the promotion of pluralistic and credible media ecosystems. Empowering citizens with critical thinking skills to navigate complex information environments can reduce the demand for coercive restrictions.

5. Platform Responsibility and Accountability: Social media companies must be held accountable for their content moderation practices. Governments should work with civil society and experts to develop standardized codes of conduct that define platforms' obligations regarding content moderation, transparency, and user rights, aligning with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Platforms should not function as proxies for state regulation, and their algorithms and enforcement policies should be transparent and consistent.

Conclusion

Nepal stands at a crucial crossroads. The Gen Z protests of September 2025, sparked by a social media ban, laid bare deep-seated frustrations with corruption, inequality, and government overreach. The government's continued reliance on vague legal frameworks like the Electronic Transactions Act and the push for restrictive new bills threaten to further shrink the online civic space, impacting freedom of expression, press freedom, and the country's economic and international standing.

For Nepal to uphold its democratic aspirations, it must move beyond short-term political fixes and embrace a future where digital freedom is safeguarded through clear, precise, and transparent regulatory frameworks, robust legal oversight, and a genuine commitment to empowering its citizens in the online sphere. The lessons from the protests and the broader South Asian experience underscore that silencing voices, whether through bans or legal intimidation, is not a sustainable path to stability or progress. Instead, fostering an open, accountable, and resilient digital environment is paramount for Nepal's collective future.