There is no denying that social media misuse has increased in recent years. The rise of misinformation, cybercrimes, and online harassment has created challenges that demand serious attention. However, Nepal already has existing laws—such as the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008—that address issues like cyberbullying, hacking, and online fraud. Instead of enforcing these laws effectively, the government is now attempting to introduce a broad and overreaching law that threatens to curb free speech, suppress dissent, and give authorities unchecked control over digital spaces.
Silencing dissent
In a democracy, the government should consult widely before presenting a bill, not after. Laws that impact fundamental rights must be shaped through open dialogue and public participation, ensuring they are well-informed and reflective of the people’s needs. Yet, Nepali Congress, Nepal’s largest democratic party, has failed this fundamental duty by remaining silent on the Social Media Bill-2025 instead of standing up for democratic principles. This silence is not just a matter of political oversight; it is a calculated avoidance of accountability.
The lack of response from Nepali Congress is particularly concerning because many of its top leaders—including Gagan Thapa and Bishwaprakash Sharma—were among the most vocal critics of similar laws when they were in opposition. While they previously took to the streets, raising their voices against restrictive digital laws, their silence now speaks louder than their past protests. Instead of challenging this authoritarian bill or at the very least demanding wider consultations, the party has chosen inaction over accountability.
This inaction can no longer be dismissed as mere political strategy. Nepali leaders are increasingly afraid of public criticism, especially as their failures in governance become more apparent. The very platforms they once used to rally support and hold the government accountable are now exposing their inability to deliver on promises. Rather than engaging with public grievances and improving governance, leaders seem intent on restricting the digital space that has become a tool for citizen activism and transparency.
Designed to suppress
While regulation of social media is necessary to curb hate speech and disinformation, this bill extends far beyond reasonable limits. Section 18, for example, criminalizes social media content that is deemed to “disturb the sovereignty, geographical integrity, national unity, and security of Nepal.” The problem with this provision is its broad and subjective language, which could allow the government to interpret any form of criticism as a national threat. This means that journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who voice dissent against government policies could be unfairly targeted, fined, or even imprisoned. Such vague laws create a dangerous climate of self-censorship, where people avoid speaking out due to fear of persecution.
The bill also criminalizes anonymous social media activity, a move that directly impacts whistleblowers, independent journalists, and activists. Under Section 27, creating or using pseudonymous accounts could lead to fines and imprisonment. Anonymity is often used to expose corruption, highlight government failures, and report human rights abuses without fear of retaliation. By making anonymity a punishable offense, the government is effectively discouraging investigative reporting and silencing critical voices.
Additionally, the bill grants the Department of Information Technology, the authority to oversee social media registration, user compliance, and content removal. This not only centralizes power in the hands of government bureaucrats but also increases the likelihood of political bias and arbitrary enforcement. Instead of addressing legitimate digital threats, the law appears to be designed to control information rather than regulate it.
Shameful silence
Nepali Congress built its reputation on defending democracy, free speech, and civil liberties. It has been at the forefront of Nepal’s democratic movements, opposing censorship and authoritarian policies. Yet, with this bill, the same party has chosen silence over action.
When in opposition, leaders like Gagan Thapa and Bishwaprakash Sharma actively protested against similar laws, arguing that they threatened democracy. Now, with their party in power, why are they choosing to remain silent instead of standing against this bill? Their refusal to speak up, even as a controversial law threatens digital freedoms, is not just disappointing—it is a betrayal of democratic values.
When in opposition Gagan Thapa and Bishwaprakash Sharma actively protested such laws. Why are they choosing to remain silent now? Their silence is an endorsement of authoritarianism by omission.
Their silence is an endorsement of authoritarianism by omission. They may not be actively supporting the bill, but their refusal to oppose it gives the ruling party the confidence to push it forward unchecked. A political party that claims to be democratic must always be willing to stand up for civil liberties, whether in power or in opposition.
Nepal has long been regarded as one of the most democratic nations in South Asia, where people from all backgrounds have enjoyed relatively unrestricted access to free expression. However, this bill represents a significant departure from that tradition. If passed, Nepal would be following in the footsteps of countries like Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, where similar digital laws have been weaponized against journalists, opposition leaders, and independent media. In Bangladesh, the 2018 Digital Security Act led to hundreds of arrests of journalists and activists who criticized the government. The Nepali government should not be making the same mistake by adopting repressive digital policies.
There are provisions whereby journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who voice dissent against government policies could be unfairly targeted, fined, or even imprisoned. Or create a dangerous climate of self-censorship, where people avoid speaking out due to fear of persecution.
Instead of imposing laws from the top down, the government must engage in broad consultations with media stakeholders, civil society organizations, legal experts, and the general public before drafting such critical legislation. The lack of transparency in this process is alarming, especially for a party that claims to uphold democratic principles. If the government truly wants to regulate social media responsibly, it must do so through inclusive dialogue and with respect for fundamental rights, rather than authoritarian decrees.
Revise or withdraw
The fundamental flaw of this bill is that it equates criticism of the government with criminal activity. Free speech is the foundation of democracy, and criticism of government policies is not a threat—it is a necessity for accountability and progress. Attempts to silence opposition through legal intimidation will only harm Nepal’s reputation as a free society. Instead of focusing on suppressing voices, the ruling coalition should work on improving governance, addressing public concerns, and strengthening democratic institutions.
If Nepali Congress truly believes in democracy, it must break its silence and stand against this bill before it is too late.
The Social Media Bill-2025 must be thoroughly revised or withdrawn. Any new regulation on digital spaces must be grounded in democratic principles, international human rights standards, and broad public participation. Only then can it truly serve the people while protecting both digital rights and national interests. If this bill is passed in its current form, Nepal risks sliding into a dangerous era of digital authoritarianism—the one where free speech is no longer a right, but a privilege granted at the discretion of those in power.
And if Nepali Congress truly believes in democracy, it must break its silence and stand against this bill before it is too late. But if their silence continues, it will be clear that their fear of public criticism outweighs their commitment to democracy.
Comment