A Law in Shadows or a Clear Framework? Comparing Nepal’s Social media bill and India’s IT Act
May 11, 2025
min read
In the era of digital advancement in Nepal, the country has been facing issues in regulating social media while protecting individual rights simultaneously. The wake of social media platforms has been creating challenges primarily in areas like managing online content, ensuring user privacy, and while mitigating cyber crimes.. Nepal’s recently introduced Social Media Bill, has initiated a heated debate about its impact on the individual's right to free expression. The proposed bill has been modeled after India’s IT Act 2000; however, Social Media Bill lacks precision leaving room for ambiguity unlike India’s IT Act which presents definitions and interpretation of key digital terms with simplicity. The Social Media Bill hence, needs further clarification when compared to India's legal framework to ensure clarity, enforcement, and effectiveness.
Nepal’s social media Bill vs. India’s IT Act: A Step Forward or a Legal Grey Area?
The social media Bill has come under scrutiny as stakeholders raise concern over its ambiguous language and lack of clarity, questioning the definition of the Act’s title itself. One major point of contention is the bill’s failure to outline clear provisions on the appeal process for users or platforms facing penalties or bans. Unlike India’s IT Act, which establishes a structured mechanism for appealing penalties and decisions through the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Similarly, the bill also lacks a defined process for handling of content removal or take down requests. In contrast, India’s IT Rules (2021) provides a detailed framework for managing complaints and appeals related to content moderation. Adding to the confusion the bill overlaps with existing laws, like the Electronic Transaction Act 2006, which already penalizes offenses like online fraud, hacking, and defamation. This duplication raises concerns like legal inconsistency and creates uncertainty over which law would prevail in case of conflict.
The bill also introduces controversial licensing requirement, stating that global social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WhatsApp must obtain a government license to operate in Nepal. However, the bill does not specify the criteria, cost, renewal process, or penalties for non-compliance. The bill grants government with broad authority to block, restrict, or suspend platforms that do not comply with said provisions. India’s IT Act, 2000 by contrast,requires no such licensing burden for social media platforms and instead categorizes platforms as intermediaries under Section 79 granting them legal protection if they follow content moderation and data-sharing rules under the Intermediary Guidelines (2021). For now, the debate is based on the essential question: Is this a bold move forward or a step into a murky legal grey area?
Free Speech in Nepal’s social media Bill: How Does India’s 'Section 66A' Provide Insight?
The bill has sparked debate, with critics writing that it threatens free speech and mirrors the controversial history of India’s repealed “Section 66A” of IT Act, 2000. The law once allowed arrests for sending or posting “offensive” online messages. However, due to its vague definitions, indefiniteness and potential of misuse, the Supreme Court of India repealed it in the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case. The court ruled it unconstitutional, citing its potential for misuse as infringement on freedom of speech and expression.
In context of Nepal, Social Media bill especially Section 19 defines “Cyber bullying" as using social media or digital devices connected to the internet to send, post, share, or circulate harmful or offensive words, phrases, symbols, images, sketches, photos, videos, audio-visual content, signals, or messages. It includes actions like harassing, abusing, threatening, humiliating, insulting, defaming, or spreading rumors to harm, torment, or impersonate someone through such activities. In this definition, the terms and what constitutes “harmful” or “unethical” content is not clear. Something that harms or sounds offensive to one person may not harm or be offensive to another, as perceptions of harm and ethics rely on norms, cultural ethics and personal preferences morality. These ambiguities make it challenging leading to subjective enforcement similar to India’s experience with section 66A.
Supporters of the bill, however, view it as a strong measure to combat online harassment, cybercrimes, misinformation, hate speech and other issues relating to digital platforms. They argue this bill could create accountability for both users and platforms.
A Mirthful March to Digital Democracy or Repression?
The debates over Nepal's proposed Social Media Bill is similar to the heated discussions around India's discarded Broadcast Bill. The Indian government had introduced the Broadcast Bill to replace the Television Network Act of 1995, however it was seen as an attempt by the government to exert authoritarian control, raising concerns about censorship and the stifling of independent voices under the guise of regulating online content. Now Nepal finds itself in a similar crossroads. The stakeholders in Nepal argue that the proposed social media bill would infringe on human rights and curtail freedom. They claim that the bill would grant the government greater control over digital platforms while slimming public input. Similar to India’s experience, the lack of transparency in drafting the bill has raised warning bells among Nepalese citizens.
As Nepalese citizens brace for what they perceive as an encroachment on their rights, the essential question still looms large: Is this bill a step toward order or simply a tool to keep the populace quiet? Perhaps for now the nation is watching and waiting to see whether this bill will usher in a new era of digital democracy or repression.
Nepal’s social media Bill vs. India’s IT Act: A Step Forward or a Legal Grey Area?
The social media Bill has come under scrutiny as stakeholders raise concern over its ambiguous language and lack of clarity, questioning the definition of the Act’s title itself. One major point of contention is the bill’s failure to outline clear provisions on the appeal process for users or platforms facing penalties or bans. Unlike India’s IT Act, which establishes a structured mechanism for appealing penalties and decisions through the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Similarly, the bill also lacks a defined process for handling of content removal or take down requests. In contrast, India’s IT Rules (2021) provides a detailed framework for managing complaints and appeals related to content moderation. Adding to the confusion the bill overlaps with existing laws, like the Electronic Transaction Act 2006, which already penalizes offenses like online fraud, hacking, and defamation. This duplication raises concerns like legal inconsistency and creates uncertainty over which law would prevail in case of conflict.
The bill also introduces controversial licensing requirement, stating that global social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and WhatsApp must obtain a government license to operate in Nepal. However, the bill does not specify the criteria, cost, renewal process, or penalties for non-compliance. The bill grants government with broad authority to block, restrict, or suspend platforms that do not comply with said provisions. India’s IT Act, 2000 by contrast,requires no such licensing burden for social media platforms and instead categorizes platforms as intermediaries under Section 79 granting them legal protection if they follow content moderation and data-sharing rules under the Intermediary Guidelines (2021). For now, the debate is based on the essential question: Is this a bold move forward or a step into a murky legal grey area?
Free Speech in Nepal’s social media Bill: How Does India’s 'Section 66A' Provide Insight?
The bill has sparked debate, with critics writing that it threatens free speech and mirrors the controversial history of India’s repealed “Section 66A” of IT Act, 2000. The law once allowed arrests for sending or posting “offensive” online messages. However, due to its vague definitions, indefiniteness and potential of misuse, the Supreme Court of India repealed it in the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case. The court ruled it unconstitutional, citing its potential for misuse as infringement on freedom of speech and expression.
In context of Nepal, Social Media bill especially Section 19 defines “Cyber bullying" as using social media or digital devices connected to the internet to send, post, share, or circulate harmful or offensive words, phrases, symbols, images, sketches, photos, videos, audio-visual content, signals, or messages. It includes actions like harassing, abusing, threatening, humiliating, insulting, defaming, or spreading rumors to harm, torment, or impersonate someone through such activities. In this definition, the terms and what constitutes “harmful” or “unethical” content is not clear. Something that harms or sounds offensive to one person may not harm or be offensive to another, as perceptions of harm and ethics rely on norms, cultural ethics and personal preferences morality. These ambiguities make it challenging leading to subjective enforcement similar to India’s experience with section 66A.
Supporters of the bill, however, view it as a strong measure to combat online harassment, cybercrimes, misinformation, hate speech and other issues relating to digital platforms. They argue this bill could create accountability for both users and platforms.
A Mirthful March to Digital Democracy or Repression?
The debates over Nepal's proposed Social Media Bill is similar to the heated discussions around India's discarded Broadcast Bill. The Indian government had introduced the Broadcast Bill to replace the Television Network Act of 1995, however it was seen as an attempt by the government to exert authoritarian control, raising concerns about censorship and the stifling of independent voices under the guise of regulating online content. Now Nepal finds itself in a similar crossroads. The stakeholders in Nepal argue that the proposed social media bill would infringe on human rights and curtail freedom. They claim that the bill would grant the government greater control over digital platforms while slimming public input. Similar to India’s experience, the lack of transparency in drafting the bill has raised warning bells among Nepalese citizens.
As Nepalese citizens brace for what they perceive as an encroachment on their rights, the essential question still looms large: Is this bill a step toward order or simply a tool to keep the populace quiet? Perhaps for now the nation is watching and waiting to see whether this bill will usher in a new era of digital democracy or repression.
About the Authors
