Digital Rights Weekly/ Year 5 Issue 16

Reviewing 2082 B.S. Through a Digital Rights Lens: A Year of Regulation, Resistance and Hope
The year 2082 B.S. will be remembered as one of the most consequential periods in Nepal’s recent history. It was marked by rapid digital expansion, major political upheaval, and renewed public demands for accountable governance. The Gen Z protests became a defining moment of the year, disrupting digital projects, damaging infrastructure, and amplifying calls for transparency, accountability, and the protection of digital rights.
The year saw strong prioritization of ICT and digitalization through government plans, programs, and budget allocations, alongside a push to expand key components of digital public infrastructure such as the National Identity Card and the Nagarik App. There was notable legal and policy progress, including the advancement of the Social Network Bill, the IT and Cybersecurity Bill, and the draft Personal Data Protection Policy. Nepal also made significant strides in AI governance with the adoption of the National AI Policy, development of sectoral AI guidelines, and establishment of an AI Centre, complemented by frameworks like the E-Commerce Act and E-Governance Blueprint. This momentum was further reinforced by the new government’s 100-point governance reform plan, which placed additional emphasis on digitalization and institutional reform. At the same time, provincial and local governments pursued innovation through AI-enabled agriculture, smart mobility solutions, and smart city initiatives.
Despite these advances, 2082 also exposed deep structural challenges. Delayed projects, weak interoperability across systems, widespread use of unregistered SIM cards, rising cybersecurity risks, and persistent barriers to access for rural and marginalized communities continued to hinder inclusive progress. Nepal’s digital economy further reflected existing inequalities, particularly through a significant gender gap in digital financial inclusion.
More broadly, the year was shaped by sweeping attempts to regulate digital spaces, growing public frustration over governance failures, nationwide protests, bloodshed, political instability, the formation of an interim administration, and the eventual establishment of a new government. Across all these developments, digital platforms remained central arenas for expression, mobilization, information-sharing, and political contestation, reaffirming the vital role of the internet in Nepal’s democratic life.
In essence, 2082 was a year of ambitious reform and technological momentum, but it also underscored the urgent need to ensure that digital transformation is guided by rights-based governance, privacy protection, inclusion, and equitable access for all.

D. Freedom of Expression and Press Freedom Under Growing Pressure
In 2082, freedom of expression and press freedom in Nepal faced mounting pressure from an expanding mix of platform moderation, regulatory enforcement, judicial actions, and law enforcement interventions. Large-scale content moderation by platforms such as TikTok including the removal of millions of Nepali videos combined with closer coordination between TikTok and the government, raised serious transparency and due process concerns. Domestically, regulatory bodies and courts increasingly asserted authority over online expression: the Patan High Court upheld the Press Council Nepal’s jurisdiction over digital media in Diyo Post case; Supreme Court cautioned against “undignified” commentary on judicial matters in social media while upholding the Tulsipur High Court (Butwal) order to remand Rabi Lamichhane and Chhabilal Banjade in custody.
Similarly, the Press Council took action against dozens of online platforms and media outlets for alleged ethical violations. Journalists, comedians, content creators, and apparel brands faced police complaints, cybercrime charges, takedown orders, and informal pressures, contributing to a chilling effect on satire, criticism, and investigative reporting. High-profile cases involving journalists, contempt proceedings against media houses, and court-ordered content removals highlighted the growing use of defamation, cyber laws, and contempt powers to curb speech, often without clear public-interest assessments.
Public resistance to restrictive trends remained visible. A nationwide hashtag campaign and strong opposition from the Federation of Nepali Journalists, lawmakers, civil society, and creators challenged the proposed Social Network Bill and broader regulatory overreach. Courts also delivered some corrective rulings, including protections against arrest for journalists and reversals of prior restraint orders, underscoring ongoing contestation over constitutional safeguards. However, the Gen Z–led protests, subsequent violence, attacks on media houses, temporary social media shutdowns, and Nepal’s classification as “obstructed” by CIVICUS reflected a shrinking civic space.
On a positive note, after more than three months of negotiations, Gen Z leaders and the interim government signed an agreement on 10 December 2025 to institutionalize the outcomes of the protest. The agreement contains ten provisions, including a specific focus on freedom of expression and digital rights. Point 8 commits the government to preventing arbitrary regulation and censorship of online expression and to strengthening safeguards against illegal surveillance and misuse of digital data. The inclusion of these commitments reflects the growing centrality of digital spaces in Nepal and marks a meaningful step toward stronger protection of digital rights and freedoms. However, the agreement or any of its content failed to feature in the newly formed governments 100-point roadmap.

F. Misinformation, Disinformation, and the Erosion of Trust
In 2082, information integrity became a major vulnerability in Nepal’s digital ecosystem, particularly during the Gen Z protests (8–9 September 2025) and the House of Representatives election period. The absence of timely and credible official communication, combined with fragmented media reporting, created an information vacuum that was quickly filled by misinformation, conspiracy theories, and distorted narratives across social media.
This period also saw a rise in deepfakes, cheapfakes, and coordinated disinformation campaigns targeting political leaders such as Rabi Lamichhane, K. P. Sharma Oli, and Balen Shah. The Cyber Bureau issued repeated warnings as manipulated content spread widely, often amplified during politically sensitive moments. The Election Commission also identified hundreds of misleading posts during elections, including fake accounts, exaggerated claims, and targeted hate speech, particularly against women candidates.
The unchecked spread of false information blurred the line between fact and fiction, eroded public trust, and heightened social and political tensions. It also demonstrated how misinformation in fragile political contexts can directly undermine democratic processes.
Overall, the growing use of AI-enabled deepfakes and easily produced manipulated media, combined with low digital literacy, has made Nepal’s information space increasingly vulnerable. Safeguarding information integrity has therefore become an essential democratic priority.