The Ministry of Information and Communication issued a notice last week warning media outlets that publishing ‘unverified content’ could invite action under cybercrime laws.

Soon after, the Nepali Army released a similar statement, without citing laws, cautioning that it was ‘regularly monitoring baseless information and expressions’ targeting military leadership and that those responsible would be ‘brought to law’.

To many observers, these statements signal a growing tendency of state institutions to invoke cyber laws in ways that risk curbing freedom of expression. Information technology expert Dovan Rai describes such warnings as ‘a threat directed at citizens’.

“Such statements strike at the spirit of democratic movements and freedom of speech,” she said.

Media persons and dozens of social media users have already experienced the consequences of such warnings and subsequent actions. Records at the Kathmandu District Court show how the Electronic Transactions Act, 2006 has been used over the past decade in cases involving freedom of expression.

Until 2023, the Kathmandu District Court was the only court in the country authorised to hear cybercrime cases. In the decade following 2013, it adjudicated over 700 cases, of which 70 were directly linked to freedom of expression and journalism. An analysis of these verdicts by Kantipur shows that the law has frequently been used not only to address cyber offences but also to suppress voices, including those of journalists, satirists and ordinary citizens.

In most of these cases, the core issue was not a distinct technological crime involving computers or the internet. Instead, they revolved around opinions and news content expressed online. The data offers a stark picture of how widely the law has been applied.

A decade’s record

Kantipur's analysis highlights several key trends. In 64 percent of expression-related cases, the accused were arrested at the outset. On average, the suspects spent 38 days in custody and jail. In at least two cases involving expression of political issues, individuals were detained for up to a year. This was the maximum sentence imposed in such cases during the decade, and neither of the accused was granted bail.

By the time the final verdict was delivered, one of them had already spent five months more in detention than the sentence prescribed. Overall, in 32 cases, defendants spent longer in custody than the punishment ultimately handed down.

In 97 percent of the cases, the alleged victims were political leaders or police organisations. However, only in fewer than 10 percent of those cases did the court conclude that actual harm had been caused to the complainants.

Around 80 percent of cases were filed over political commentary targeting public figures or institutions. A similar proportion of complaints were initiated by state bodies such as the police, the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Office of the President, often without a direct complaint from an affected individual. This suggests that the state itself has frequently taken the lead in prosecuting critics rather than acting on grievances from victims.

The individuals targeted by these cases range widely. A 16-year-old boy from ward 1 of Itahari Sub-Metropolitan City, Sunsari, was arrested for allegedly mimicking the voices of then President Bidya Devi Bhandari and then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba in a video that included ‘offensive language’. Police detained him for investigation and seized his phone and computer CPU.

The boy said he had not created the video but had only reposted it on a social media page called ‘Troll Sunsari’. Nevertheless, the court sentenced him to imprisonment equivalent to his time in custody (the verdict does not specify number of days), fined him Rs5,000 and ordered the confiscation of his mobile phone.

In another case, Sakar Adhikari, a 22-year-old student undergoing treatment for mental illness, was charged for posting content deemed defamatory towards then Prime Minister Deuba and the police. He was brought to court while receiving treatment at Mental Hospital, Lagankhel. The court initially demanded a bail of Rs50,000 for him to fight the case outside detention. Ultimately, Judge Krishna Prasad Paudel acquitted him, ruling that no punishment could be imposed for a Facebook post made while he was mentally unwell.

Several individuals were also prosecuted for posting edited images of political leaders. Among them was Saroj Niraula, 29, from Udayapur, who was arrested, based on a letter from the President’s Office alleging that he had shared an ‘indecent image’ undermining the dignity of the President.

Court documents do not clearly describe the image, its caption or how it constituted a cybercrime. Niraula said he had downloaded the image from another page and deleted it within an hour after realising it was inappropriate. He also publicly apologised on Facebook. Despite this, the court denied him bail and ordered his detention until the case’s conclusion.

After three months and 26 days, the court sentenced him to exactly the same duration in prison along with a Rs1,000 fine, effectively matching his pre-trial detention.

During Bhandari’s presidency, her office reportedly directed police more than a dozen times to take action under cyber law against individuals accused of similar acts.

In most cases, courts have found defendants guilty. The analysis shows that 60 percent of the 70 cases resulted in convictions. However, in some acquittals, judges emphasised the importance of respecting freedom of expression.

Tara Nachhiring, a permanent resident of Khotang and staying in ward 13 of Budhanilkantha Municipality, posted a status criticising KP Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Ishwar Pokharel, Gokul Baskota, Bhanubhakta Dhakal and Yogesh Bhattarai, calling them ‘notorious national looters’ and sharing their photographs. None of the leaders filed a complaint. Yet police initiated a case.

Nachhiring was arrested and the court demanded a bail of Rs25,000. In the final verdict, District Judge Binod Kumar Pokharel acquitted him, stating that he had exercised his right to free expression.

By interpreting constitutional provisions, the judgment offered four key arguments. First, the leaders themselves frequently make harsher accusations against each other in public forums which are accepted as free speech. Citizens’ evaluation of those leaders cannot therefore be criminalised. Second, similar posts were widely shared by others, and singling out one individual violated the principle of equality. Third, none of the alleged victims appeared in court, raising questions about who the supposed harm was directed at. Finally, the judge concluded that the post reflected ‘public sentiment’ rather than criminal intent.

In another case in 2022, one Deepak Raj Joshi posted on Facebook that he had seen two police officers patrolling in the Mitranagar area of Kalanki in an intoxicated state and questioned who monitors such behaviour. He did not name or photograph the officers.

Police arrested him and charged him with cybercrime. The court later ruled that the post merely sought to draw the state’s attention and did not constitute a cyber offence. By then, Joshi had already spent 23 days in detention.

Such cases illustrate a broader pattern: citizens questioning public institutions have faced criminal charges framed as violations of ‘public decency’. Even those eventually acquitted often endure prolonged detention like Joshi. In 45 percent of cases, defendants spent additional time in custody beyond their final sentences. Some were acquitted, while others served longer than the penalties imposed.

Another striking aspect is the inconsistency of verdicts. Similar expressions have led to different outcomes. A TikTok user who posted that ‘Yamaraj [Hindu god of death] has already delivered the message of death’ alongside a photograph of Jhala Nath Khanal was acquitted. In cases where Oli was labelled ‘corrupt’, some defendants were acquitted while others were convicted. Likewise, individuals who described Dahal as responsible for the deaths of 17,000 people received mixed verdicts. In contrast, a person who claimed that Bidya Devi Bhandari rode in a car more expensive than that of a queen was convicted and sent to prison.

All these cases were decided under Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2006. However, the provision is so ambiguous that outcomes often depend more on judicial interpretation than on the content of the expression itself.

The royal roots of Section 47

Section 47 traces its roots to a royal ordinance issued during former King Gyanendra Shah’s direct rule after dissolving the Parliament on February 1, 2005. The ordinance, issued in the changed political circumstances on September 12, 2005, prohibited publishing content via electronic means that was ‘against public decency’, ‘spread hatred’, or ‘disrupted harmony among communities’.

The Act did not define these terms, leaving them open to subjective interpretation. It prescribed penalties of up to five years in prison and fines of up to Rs100,000, provisions that remain in force as of today.

According to a policy paper named Background and Formulation Process of the Electronic Transactions Act by Martin Chautari, the ordinance had to be passed within six months of the restoration of Parliament to remain valid. It was approved with minimal deliberation, and Section 47 was retained unchanged.

Researcher Harsha Man Maharjan notes that earlier drafts of the law from 2001 had narrower definitions and lighter penalties. The 2005 ordinance expanded both. Despite the political transformation following the people’s movement, the provision was incorporated into law without amendment. “Section 47 from the royal ordinance was adopted as it was and has never been revised,” says Maharjan.

The House of Representatives could have removed or clarified the section to prevent misuse against free expression. Writing an article in Himal Khabar, Maharjan says, “Amid sustained criticism of Section 47 from journalists and the human rights community, there was ample scope to amend or scrap provisions that curtail freedom of expression unrelated to electronic transactions. Alternatives also existed—to penalise those who misuse the law, or to ensure compensation for individuals harmed by malicious prosecution. Yet, to this day, Section 47 continues to be abused to settle political scores and pursue personal vendettas.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that cases under Section 47 should be interpreted in line with the Act’s preamble, which emphasises making digital transactions ‘reliable and secure’. This suggests the law was not intended to regulate speech.

A 2024 study by the Office of the Attorney General acknowledges the problem, stating that the provision is ‘unclear, ambiguous and contradictory’ and recommending legal reforms to protect constitutional rights.

Advocate Pabitra Raut says that the government is using the law as a ‘weapon’ to suppress expression. “Freedom of expression is a fundamental right. It should not be controlled through cybercrime laws,” she said.

A report published by the National Judicial Academy also notes that the law was designed to regulate electronic signatures but is being used for cybercrime cases.

Most cases involve defamation and character assassination, which are already covered by separate laws, says the report titled ‘A Study on Cyber Crime Cases in Nepal: Challenges and Recommendations’.

Taranath Dahal, executive chief of Freedom Forum, says the Act has also been used to regulate journalism. “Section 47 is being misused to suppress both citizens and the media,” he asserted.

New government treads the same old path

Roshan Pokharel of ward 7 of Phalgunanda Rural Municipality, Panchthar, was arrested on April 9, just two weeks after the formation of the new government led by Balendra Shah. He was accused of cybercrime for criticising Prime Minister Shah on a YouTube channel. Pokharel had expressed critical views on YouTube, arguing that the working style of Prime Minister Shah and his ministers was no different to that of leaders of the traditional parties.

Police in Panchthar detained Pokharel after the Nepal Police Cyber Bureau instructed them to conduct an inquiry into the video. “After the Cyber Bureau asked us to monitor him, we reviewed his videos and arrested him after finding them controversial,” said Police Inspector Ramchandra Shah, spokesperson for the District Police Office in Panchthar. A case has been filed against Pokharel at the Panchthar District Court under Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act, 2006.

Similarly, journalist Basudev Dhami in Kanchanpur faced a cybercrime investigation last week following a complaint by a local official over a published news report. The Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) has protested, stating that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Press Council, not criminal law.

Following a complaint by Shanti Nath, vice-chair of Beldandi Rural Municipality, over a news report published in Pashchim Samachar Daily, the District Police Office in Kanchanpur issued an arrest warrant to initiate proceedings under the Electronic Transactions Act on the instruction of the Cyber Bureau.

Ram Prasad Dahal, general secretary of the FNJ, issued a statement protesting the move, stressing that matters related to published news fall within the jurisdiction of the Press Council. He objected to the filing of criminal charges against a journalist.

Taranath Dahal, the executive chief of Freedom Forum, said the development was reminiscent of past practices. “It evokes the Oli-era approach. The Electronic Transactions Act must not be used to regulate media content,” he said.

FNJ President Nirmala Sharma also expressed concern over the ministry’s recent notice and attempts to prosecute journalists under cyber law. “The Press Council is the right body to deal with media outlets that fail to follow the code of conduct. If there is dissatisfaction, judicial avenues are available,” Sharma wrote on Facebook.

The ministry, however, maintains that its notice targets unregistered platforms spreading misinformation. “This is not an authoritarian step but a polite request. The ministry cannot remain silent when unverified information spreads,” said under secretary Rabindra Prasad Paudyal.

Information Technology expert Rai stresses the need for balance between freedom of expression and digital security. “But when freedoms are curtailed, the digital space becomes more fearful rather than safer. The priority should be protecting vulnerable individuals from digital harm, not shielding powerful figures from criticism,” she said.

Last year’s Gen Z movement, which opposed social media restrictions, led to the fall of the Oli-led government. Yet within a month of the new government, similar warnings have resurfaced by using the same Section 47.

The Nepali Army’s recent statement that it is ‘regularly monitoring’ digital activities has revived concerns about surveillance. A 2019 incident revealed that the military tracked social media posts and travel details of Rudra KC of Dang, a migrant worker in Qatar, leading to his arrest upon arrival at Tribhuvan International Airport. He had posted a Facebook status describing then Army Chief Purna Chandra Thapa as a coward, accompanied by the latter’s photograph.

But that was seven years ago. Now, the Army itself has issued a statement saying, “We have been conducting regular monitoring.” This has raised a question—how far does the monitoring of citizens’ digital activities actually go?