CIVICUS discusses Nepal’s Social Network Bill with Dikshya Khadgi, a Nepali feminist digital rights lawyer and activist and a member of AALAWYA, a feminist advocacy and movement lawyering collective rooted in the values of justice, equality, radical care and cross-movement building.

The proposed law would require social media platforms to obtain licences and comply with strict regulations, and would grant authorities the power to ban content and impose severe penalties for posts deemed harmful or misleading. This could lead to censorship and have a chilling effect on free speech. Additionally, the law would mandate users to disclose their identities and share data with authorities, raising serious privacy concerns. The bill’s vague language could enable government overreach and selective enforcement, allowing authorities to target dissenting voices while undermining constitutional rights and stifling public discourse under the guise of regulation.

What are the key threats posed by the new Social Network Bill?

The proposed law poses serious threats to freedom of expression, privacy and press freedom. It grants the government extensive control over digital spaces by imposing vague restrictions that could criminalise criticism of the government, dissent and online activism.

One of the most alarming provisions is the severe punishment for online content deemed harmful to national sovereignty, national interest or public morality. Offenders could face fines of up to NPR 1,500,000 (approx. U$S 10,800) and imprisonment for up to five years. Such penalties are disproportionate and grant authorities sweeping discretion to silence activists, critics and journalists.

The bill’s broad language allows authorities to determine what constitutes a threat to social harmony, national interests, national sovereignty and territorial integrity, paving the way for targeting of activists, artists, journalists and protesters. It should be noted that many artists, particularly women and queer artists, are often targeted for their sexual expression online, which is considered to be against the Nepali Sanskar tradition. There have been incidents of songs and movies being taken down because they were deemed ‘obscene’. The bill includes a provision prohibiting obscene and promiscuous content online, and because it doesn’t take consent into account, it may be used to curb sexual expression of women and gender-diverse people.

Additionally, while the bill doesn’t include specific provisions to legalise state surveillance, past experiences suggest its ambiguity could easily be exploited to monitor and suppress dissent.

Nepal has already seen worrying trends of state surveillance and protest suppression. Indigenous activists resisting government-backed development projects have reported feeling constantly watched and suspect their phones are being tapped. In some cases, authorities have used CCTV footage to identify and target protesters. The bill would further legitimise such practices, granting the state additional tools to track and punish those who challenge its policies.

The bill also seeks to prohibit anonymous or pseudonymous social media accounts, ostensibly to curb misinformation and hate speech. This directly impacts on activists and whistleblowers who rely on anonymity for safety and protection, particularly queer people who use the digital space to explore their identity and sexuality and organise queer events. By stripping them of this safeguard, the government is further restricting their ability to speak out on critical issues.

The legislation aligns with previous attempts to expand state surveillance, such as the 2018 Special Service Bill, which sought to legalise phone tapping and online monitoring without judicial oversight. While that bill was withdrawn, the Social Network Bill could function as an alternative means of achieving the same goal. This, combined with actions such as a recent TikTok ban, suggests the bill is part of a broader strategy to tighten control over digital communication and restrict civic space.

While regulations are needed to make social media usage safe for everyone, it is important to note that harsher punishment doesn’t necessarily deter bad behaviour. In a country like Nepal with digital divides, unequal internet access and a lack of digital literacy, the focus should be on public awareness and digital literacy instead of harsh punishment.

Who is civil society responding?

People have mobilised vigorously. Civil society groups, activists and journalists are running awareness campaigns using social media to break down the bill’s complex legal language and explain its dangerous implications in accessible terms. By drawing comparisons with similar laws that have been used to stifle free speech in other countries, they aim to warn the public and lawmakers about the potential consequences.

Nepal’s parliament has yet to finalise the bill, so activists and media professionals are lobbying lawmakers to amend or reject its most draconian provisions. Journalists have been vocal in raising concerns about press freedom, freedom of expression and the right to privacy, and legal experts are preparing to challenge its constitutionality if the law is passed.

Given the rising global trend of digital repression, Nepal’s civil society is also working to amplify external pressure, urging international organisations and diplomatic bodies to take a stand against the bill.

What has been the international community’s response?

The international community has expressed growing concern over Nepal’s shift towards digital repression, particularly in the context of rising authoritarianism across the region. The bill has drawn comparisons with restrictive internet laws in neighbouring India, where digital censorship has been used to suppress activism and minority voices.

Global human rights organisations, media watchdogs and diplomatic missions have urged the Nepali government to reconsider the bill, warning it could significantly harm Nepal’s democratic freedoms and contribute to the broader pattern of restricted civic space in the country. The bill could also affect Nepal’s diplomatic and economic relationships, particularly with countries that prioritise digital rights and democratic values. If the law is passed, Nepal could face reputational consequences, potentially affecting foreign aid, investment and international partnerships.

While direct international intervention remains limited, global advocacy groups are working alongside Nepali civil society to raise awareness and increase diplomatic pressure. Sustained global scrutiny and attention are key to ensuring that Nepal upholds its democratic values and safeguards its citizens’ fundamental rights.