The introduction of the Social Media Regulation Bill, 2025, in the National Assembly has reignited the debate on social media regulation in Nepal. The government has been attempting to pass a law to regulate social media for the past six years. It has repeatedly failed due to strong opposition from civil society regarding its controversial provisions. The proposed bill is facing similar criticism, with concerns over its regressive clauses that could stifle free speech on social media.

Social media has emerged as a defining feature of the modern information ecosystem and is essential in facilitating public discourse and shaping opinions in the digital society. For a democracy to thrive, these platforms must remain neutral and free from undue influence. Concerns have been raised over the role of social media platforms, particularly regarding their commitment to fairness amid the use of algorithms for content optimisation and their responsiveness to users. While the bill aims to regulate social media, it grants regulatory authorities significant coercive powers to an executive department, raising further alarms over fairness, transparency and the digital rights of users.

Unpacking the department

The Bill establishes a department under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, positioning it as a pivotal institution for regulating social media. This department is empowered to register, renew, repeal and recommend the cessation of operations for social media intermediaries under its regulatory authority. It is responsible for determining whether platforms comply with the law, including requirements to prevent disseminating certain types of content on social media, develop systems to filter such content, fact-check content, prevent anonymity and provide user details upon request, among other duties. If the department determines that an intermediary has not complied with the law, it can impose a penalty ranging from Rs5 to Rs10 million.

The Bill further outlines the department’s powers, functions and authority to regulate social media content through intermediaries. It mandates that the department may direct intermediaries to remove any content deemed to violate existing laws. They are required to comply with these directives. Failure to do so can result in penalties ranging from Rs500,000 to Rs1 million, with recurring fines for each instance of non-compliance. The department may recommend that relevant authorities take action against content posted or shared on platforms based on its nature, effect and impact.

In addition to these responsibilities, the department is envisioned as so powerful that it recommends policy, legal and institutional reforms, makes arrangements to hear grievances regarding social media use, conducts awareness programmes on social media operations and coordinates with other agencies.

Challenges

The law should establish provisions to regulate both intermediaries and users for effective social media regulation. The state requires an apparatus (independent regulatory body) to enforce these regulatory powers. In this context, the draft law designates this responsibility to a department under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, raising concerns from a civil rights perspective.

Social media is undoubtedly the digital public square at present. We exercise our rights on these platforms—gathering information, discussing matters of public concern and forming opinions. Although social media was initially conceived as a free platform without government interference, global experience has refuted this assumption. Regulation is necessary, as neither users nor intermediaries can be entirely unregulated—both have their incentives and motives.

However, this brings us to a crucial question: Should we give the government free rein to regulate these platforms? The answer is a resounding no.

History has shown us that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, thus rendering some more equal than others. We have witnessed governments consistently attempting to control public spaces to maintain their grip on the flow of information, discourse and public opinion in ways that serve their interests.

The significant authority granted to the department as an executive body makes its role in platform and content regulation particularly sensitive for both users and social media. This power could be misused to silence critical voices by pushing intermediaries to take down such content, as done previously in other contexts. There will always be the risk that decisions could be biased, unfair, or politically motivated, resulting in censorship and self-censorship, undermining the independence and fairness of the regulatory process.

Independent council

Given the concerns over social media regulation by state mechanisms, an independent, accountable and transparent Social Media Council is the best way to balance users’ rights and the state’s interests.

In 2019, ARTICLE 19, Standford University’s Global Digital Policy Incubator, and David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on promoting and protecting freedom of opinion and expression, proposed a Social Media Council as the ideal model for content moderation. Their report argued that such a council would effectively balance the opaque and arbitrary self-regulation fueled by the business interests of social media companies with government regulation, which often involves regressive statutes that limit free expression.

The Social Media Council would be an independent organisation established under federal legislation with a mandate to carry out the regulatory functions assigned to it. It would be led by champions of human rights and technology experts, ensuring that leadership upholds human rights principles and democratic values while regulating content on social media. The council will reasonably access the contents and balance them with the interests of society, free from any interference from the government or the intermediaries.

At a time when social media is projected as ill to society by the ruling section and the bureaucracy, its potential to promote human rights cannot be belittled in democratic nations like Nepal. The eccentricity of ruling political groups and the shortsightedness of bureaucracy are poised to undermine free speech on social media by assigning the department to diktat platforms and users. The government must realise that the internet and its issues have evolved and should be nurtured using a multi-stakeholder approach. So, the present scenario may necessitate the establishment of a national social media council, as Article 19, along with other organisations, mulled years before.