Submit your Article

Protesters vandalized and set fire to the house of CPN (Maoist Center) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal in Khumaltar on Tuesday.

Protesters also set fire to and vandalized the residence of government spokesperson and Minister of Communications and Information Technology Prithvi Subba Gurung.

Lalitpur Police Spokesperson Chakraraj Joshi informed Annapurna Post, sister publication of The Annapurna Express, that the protesters set fire to and vandalized Minister Gurung's residence in Sunakothi, Lalitpur.

According to him, the fire has already been taken under control.

Protesters hurled stones and set fire to Minister Gurung's residence during the protest of Gen Z.

According to Apil Raj Bohra, spokesperson at the District Police Range, Kathmandu, protesters have been demonstrating in almost all the places.

He said that the protesters are also demonstrating in front of the residence of CPN-UML Chairman and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in Balkot.

Likewise, protesters are also protesting near the residence of Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba in Budhanilkantha.

Minister for Health and Population Pradip Paudel tendered his resignation on Tuesday.

He has announced his resignation, saying that he cannot remain in the government under current circumstances.

Paudel also said that the Nepali Congress should leave the government in this situation.

The Government of Nepal’s arbitrary decision of Sept 4 to impose a blanket ban on 26 social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, X, Instagram and LinkedIn, will have far-reaching consequences for Nepal’s digital ecosystem, democracy, freedom of expression and independent journalism. 

Social media in Nepal has become a vital space for civic engagement, where citizens, activists, and journalists share critical information, challenge state narratives, and demand accountability from those in power. Silencing these platforms not only undermines constitutional guarantees but also pushes dissent underground, fostering fear, censorship, and self-censorship.

Silencing dissent and independent journalism 

Media Action Nepal’s record shows that nearly 2,500 professional journalists—at least 1,000 of them formerly associated with corporate and big media houses in roles ranging from reporters to editors—are now running independent small newsrooms, providing the public with information of public interest. Alongside them, thousands of digital content creators engage with audiences, expose frauds, scrutinize governance failures, and contribute to Nepal’s economy through taxes they pay. These two sections of the media ecosystem have become inseparable from the lives of people in Nepal and the diaspora, serving as watchdogs over the state. Their independence from political parties has irritated the ruling coalition, which has repeatedly harassed journalists under the Electronic Transaction Act merely for reporting. This blanket ban is the government’s latest attempt to silence critical and independent voices.

Political motive

A second driver of this regressive move is political cunning. The Nepali Congress–CPN-UML coalition has grown increasingly wary of emerging political forces, independent candidates, and analysts who might challenge its dominance in the upcoming by-elections in Rupandehi district. Reports of former President Bidya Devi Bhandari attempting to position herself to lead CPN-UML have further fueled Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s insecurities, leading to this decision rooted as much in personal ego as in political control. None of these justifications, however, can legitimize a measure that gravely undermines press freedom, shrinks civic space, and erodes the democratic aspirations of the Nepali people.

Arbitrary and authoritarian 

This blanket ban on social media is neither legal nor constitutional. The Supreme Court of Nepal, in its recent order, did not authorize an administrative prohibition of social media platforms. Rather, it instructed the government to draft appropriate legislation to regulate digital platforms in line with the Constitution’s guarantees of fundamental rights. By issuing a sweeping administrative order, the GoN has misinterpreted the Court’s directive and acted far beyond its authority.

The Constitution of Nepal enshrines clear protections that this ban directly violates. Article 17 guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Article 19 guarantees the right to communication; and Article 27 guarantees the right to information. These provisions make it clear that in a democratic system and an open market economy, global digital connectivity cannot be arbitrarily censored. Democracy and authoritarianism cannot co-exist, and any restrictions on fundamental freedoms must be lawful, proportionate, and strictly necessary.

Internationally, Nepal has binding obligations as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified in 1991. Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, across frontiers. Restrictions are permissible only under very narrow conditions—to protect the rights and reputation of others, national security, public order, or public health and morals—and even then, they must meet the three-part test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The government’s blanket ban fails on all three counts. It is not based on law passed by Parliament, it is disproportionate in its scope, and it undermines the very essence of freedom of expression itself.

By imposing such an arbitrary ban through administrative order, Nepal not only violates its own Constitution but also disregards its international human rights commitments. The action sets a dangerous precedent of executive overreach, reverses the principle that rights are the rule and restrictions the exception, and risks isolating Nepal from the global democratic community. This ban is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and unlawful. It must be immediately repealed, and any future regulation of digital platforms must be pursued through transparent, participatory parliamentary processes in compliance with Nepal’s constitutional guarantees and international obligations.

Broken connectivity

The ban also strikes at the heart of social and economic life. For millions of Nepali people with family members working abroad, social media platforms are essential tools for affordable and instant communication. Cutting off these channels deepens the isolation of families and disrupts the social fabric of a nation heavily dependent on remittances. Economically, the decision will hurt small newsrooms, digital-first outlets, and independent content creators who rely on social media for visibility, outreach, and revenue generation. At a time when Nepal is striving to expand its digital economy and global connectivity, this ban risks isolating the country from international networks, stifling innovation, and discouraging investment in the digital sector.

Civic assault

There is no space for attacks on fundamental freedoms in a democracy. The arbitrary suspension of social media platforms is not only unconstitutional but also a direct assault on civic space and public trust. Unless revoked immediately, this ban will leave ruling parties morally and politically accountable to the people of Nepal and will bear long-term costs in terms of public legitimacy, international credibility, and democratic backsliding.

This ban represents a regressive step that jeopardizes democratic values, erodes citizens’ trust in institutions, and undermines Nepal’s international commitments to human rights. Such measures weaken—not strengthen—democracy, and risk pushing Nepal further away from its democratic aspirations and obligations.

Restore freedoms

First, the government must withdraw this administrative decision without delay. Any attempt to deactivate or restrict social media platforms in the absence of legislative or constitutional grounds amounts to authoritarian overreach. Second, regulation of digital platforms, if required, must strictly comply with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, right to communication, freedom of association, and right to information, as well as Nepal’s binding obligations under international human rights treaties.

Third, any future steps regarding social media governance must follow due process and democratic procedure. A comprehensive and transparent legislative process through Parliament is the only legitimate avenue for framing social media laws. This process must be inclusive, consultative, and rooted in the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality as laid out in Article 19 of the ICCPR and Nepal’s own constitutional framework. Administrative shortcuts, like the present order, erode the very foundations of democracy and push the country toward authoritarianism.

If the ruling parties continue to enforce this ban, they risk being held accountable not only by the Nepali people but also before international human rights mechanisms. Democracy is built on freedoms, not restrictions—and it is only by respecting those freedoms that Nepal can maintain its democratic credibility at home and abroad.

The author, a global advocate for freedom of expression, is the founding chair of Media Action Nepal

Nepal’s government lifted its ban on social media platforms Tuesday a day after police killed opened fire on mass street protests against the ban, killing 19 people, Associated Press reported.

The district administration ordered an indefinite curfew in the capital and schools were closed. A curfew was also imposed in two other cities.

Several widely used social networks, including Facebook, X and YouTube were blocked in the Himalayan nation last week after failing to comply with a new requirement to register and submit to government oversight.

Rallies against the ban swelled to tens of thousands of people in Kathmandu and crowds surrounded the Parliament building before police opened fire on the demonstrators, according to Associated Press.

“Stop the ban on social media. Stop corruption, not social media,” the crowds chanted, waving national flags. Monday’s rally was called the protest of Gen Z, which generally refers to people born between 1995 and 2010.