Introduction
In September 2025, Nepal shook the digital landscape by blocking major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X (Twitter). The government justified the move by citing the need for accountability, local registration of platforms, and better grievance mechanisms as directed by the Supreme Court. While officials argue this is a step toward responsible digital governance, critics fear it may limit freedom of expression, disrupt online businesses, and isolate Nepal digitally.
But Nepal isn’t the first to take this route. Across South Asia, governments have introduced tough social media laws in recent years. Some are designed to curb misinformation and enhance accountability, while others raise concerns over censorship and political overreach. This blog explores how Nepal’s approach compares to other South Asian countries and global examples—and whether the country is on the right path.
Nepal’s Current Approach
-
Requirement: Platforms must register locally, appoint a liaison officer, and establish a grievance redressal mechanism.
-
Action taken: ISPs were ordered to block platforms that failed to register.
-
Criticism: Blanket blocking has disrupted livelihoods of content creators, SMEs, and freelancers.
South Asian Comparisons
India
-
Introduced IT Rules 2021, requiring large social media firms to appoint compliance officers, publish grievance reports, and act on takedown requests quickly.
-
Recent amendments gave government agencies more power, but courts have struck down overreaching provisions.
-
Balance: Strong rules but judicial oversight keeps checks and balances.
Pakistan
-
Enforces Removal and Blocking of Unlawful Online Content Rules (2020/21).
-
Platforms must comply with directives from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).
-
Criticized for broad, vague grounds and limited transparency.
Bangladesh
-
Replaced the Digital Security Act 2018 with the Cyber Security Act 2023.
-
Still retains sweeping powers that may chill free speech.
-
Human rights groups continue to call for reform.
Sri Lanka
-
Enacted the Online Safety Act (2024), creating a commission with the power to order removals and penalize platforms.
-
Government argues it will curb cybercrime; civil society warns it could be used to silence critics.
Comparison Table
| Country | Registration Required | Takedown Authority | Oversight | Concerns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nepal | Yes (local presence, grievance officer) | ISP blocking for non-registration | Bill pending; oversight unclear | Over-broad blocking, chilling effect |
| India | Yes (compliance officers, grievance system) | Strong takedown obligations | Courts actively reviewing | Risk of executive overreach |
| Pakistan | Yes (must follow PTA directives) | PTA can block/remove | Limited oversight | Broad, vague powers |
| Bangladesh | Broad cyber laws indirectly regulate platforms | Govt prosecutions | Limited | Free speech concerns |
| Sri Lanka | Yes, via Online Safety Act | Online Safety Commission | Courts not yet tested | Platform liability, censorship risks |
Global Lessons
-
European Union (EU Digital Services Act): Focuses on transparency, user rights, and proportionate fines before bans.
-
Australia (eSafety): Targets specific harms like child exploitation, not broad political speech.
-
Judicial Oversight (India): Courts striking down unconstitutional parts show the importance of independent review.
Is Nepal on the Right Path?
-
Positive steps: Demanding accountability, registration, and grievance mechanisms aligns Nepal with India and other regional peers.
-
Risk factors: Immediate blanket bans may harm SMEs, freelancers, and students who rely on these platforms.
-
Best approach: Nepal should adopt graduated penalties (warnings, fines, time-bound compliance) before service disruption, and ensure judicial oversight to protect citizens’ rights.
Conclusion
Nepal stands at a crossroads. If implemented carefully—with clear rules, proportional enforcement, and independent oversight—its digital laws could create a safer and more accountable online environment. But if applied broadly and without transparency, they risk eroding freedom of expression and hurting the country’s growing digital economy. Learning from India’s judicial checks, Bangladesh’s cautionary tale, and global models like the EU’s DSA, Nepal has the chance to build a framework that balances accountability with digital freedom.