In Nepal, a Rare Political Consensus—But Against Social Media

Nepal, once a bastion of political turmoil, has carved out a reputation as one of Asia’s freest nations—a distinction that rests firmly on the foundation of its 2015 constitution, which enshrined the right to free speech. In 2024, this hard-won freedom found a fresh affirmation when Nepal ranked 74th out of 180 on Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index—an enviable position in a region where such liberties remain precarious. Yet, this hard-fought freedom is now under siege. A proposed bill to regulate social media has ignited fears that both Nepali citizens and foreign visitors might once again find their voices stifled, evoking the specter of past repressions under monarchic and communist rule. Critics have raised alarms, arguing that its broad, ambiguous language could be used to suppress political dissent and undermine the very rights the constitution was designed to protect. Even more alarming, Nepal’s political parties—long divided on nearly every issue—have found rare consensus on this bill, either remaining silent or, more troubling still, lending their endorsement. This unusual unity points to a disconcerting shift in the nation’s democratic trajectory, one that could redefine the landscape of free expression in the years to come.

The new bill certainly has its merits, particularly in its focus on addressing online crimes—a concern that is echoed in similar measures around the world. There are legitimate reasons for regulating digital spaces, such as combating cyberbullying and misinformation, and few would argue against the importance of ensuring online safety. However, while the government frames the bill as a necessary step for digital regulation, several provisions seem to mirror the tactics of authoritarian regimes globally. The bill mandates social media account registration for businesses and grants authorities expansive powers to remove content deemed indecent or misleading. It would require all platforms operating in Nepal—including Facebook and X—to obtain government approval. Platforms that fail to comply could face bans, while individuals found guilty of spreading false information could face hefty fines and up to five years in prison. 

Additionally, the bill criminalizes the use of anonymous or pseudonymous identities on social media, which raises serious concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. The legislation also imposes broad restrictions on digital expressions, prohibiting any online actions deemed harmful to national interests. Offenses such as hate speech, trolling, and the use of graphic images or videos to attack individuals would be punishable by law. While such restrictions are not uncommon in certain parts of Southeast Asia, the bill’s sweeping nature and vague language present a significant risk to free speech in Nepal—a country with a multiparty democracy that spans ideologies from communism to Hindu nationalism.

The bill adopts a strict crime-and-punishment approach, criminalizing actions such as spreading rumors, using pseudonyms, or creating social media accounts without prior government approval. Critics argue that these provisions could encourage widespread self-censorship, particularly among intellectuals, and disproportionately affect those with limited digital literacy, who may unknowingly share misleading content. By penalizing anonymity through vague definitions and excessive state control, the legislation poses a significant threat to diverse voices and could severely curtail free expression in an increasingly digital world.

It’s no surprise that many critics view the bill as an attempt to silence dissent and stifle public criticism, which has intensified due to the government’s underperformance despite its strong parliamentary majority. While social media influencers have rallied behind the hashtag #BolnaDeSarkar, meaning “Let us speak, government,” major political parties and mainstream media outlets have largely remained silent. Opposition parties, having supported similar measures when in power, have little incentive to oppose the bill. Meanwhile, mainstream media may see social media as a growing threat, with its erosion of both audience and revenue. In this context, social media has become a common target for many institutions.

Under Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, the government remains resolute in advancing the bill. Nepal’s Information Minister, Prithvi Subba Gurung, has defended the proposal, arguing that it is essential to combat cyberbullying and other online offenses. Once the Rastriya Sabha approves the bill, lawmakers will have the opportunity to propose amendments. The bill will then move to the Pratinidhi Sabha for further deliberation before returning to the Rastriya Sabha for final review. Afterward, it will be sent to the president’s office for signing into law. With broad support from all political parties and mainstream media, the bill is expected to be enacted swiftly. This would place Nepal’s social media landscape under total government control, effectively silencing dissenting voices.