Imagine if the proposed Social Media Bill had been in place three years ago. Would Balendra Shah and Sunita Dangol have been able to connect with the public and win the local elections from Kathmandu? While their leadership and vision were strong, social media played a big part in spreading their message and gaining support. If this had been implemented three years ago, would then emerging leaders really be behind bars for voicing their opinions against the government, or would accountability still spare the powerful?

The ease of access to digital platforms has allowed many young politicians to enter the political scene. In Nepal, as of 2023, women hold 33.1 percent, and young people aged 30 or younger make up about 2.9 percent of parliamentary seats. Social media has been a key tool in breaking old rules, increasing political involvement, and driving drastic changes.

The ‘Bill Related to Operation, Use, and Regulation of Social Media in Nepal’ was introduced by Communications Minister Prithvi Subba Gurung in the Upper House on Jan 28. He said it aims to ensure good behavior and responsibility, but it has several worrying parts that challenge basic rights, especially those guaranteed under Articles 17 and 19 of Nepal’s Constitution. As a youth advocate, I still struggle to speak freely in a system that tightens control over digital spaces. This bill doesn’t just regulate—it silences, making it harder to challenge power and uphold the very rights democracy promises.

The recently enacted bill makes us question whether the transparency and accountability push of Sumana Shrestha would have achieved similar backing. The speed at which anti-corruption campaigns and gender justice campaigns for Niramla Pant’s case—today being the 2,386 day—spread across society would potentially have slowed down if this bill were in effect. The new legislation contains restrictive measures that restrict the voices of activists as well as public participation.

Problems with the bill

Section 18: Digital speech criminalizing

Section 18 of the bill says that if anyone does something harmful to national interests with bad intentions that causes hatred among groups or harms relations between federal units, they will face a five-year prison sentence, a fine of up to Rs 500,000, or both.

The definition of “bad intentions,” which is vaguely defined, creates possibilities for unfair enforcement. Under this policy, the authorities could falsely claim protection by countering their bad intentions. My detention could happen when I expressed criticism and opinions about my country's leaders, even if my motives were innocent. Are we not entitled to use our freedom of expression? We live in a democracy, and we have the right to free speech.

As an advocate and leader, will I be jailed simply for raising concerns about the government on social media? Meanwhile, those in power will have the freedom to do anything they want and misuse their authority without consequences. Where is the accountability for government officials who manipulate information and spread propaganda? Is this justice?

Sections 21, 22, and 23: Restricting political expression

Sections 21, 22, and 23 propose up to three years in prison or a fine of up to Rs 1.5m for hacking into someone’s identity or information via social media, tricking people, or blackmailing respectively.

The bill’s unclear language on “making fun of images, trolling, negative comments, and spreading false information” could be used against activists, journalists, and politicians who challenge the government. If I speak up about my village’s struggles, can those in power really accuse me of a crime? Over 50 journalists and activists faced arrest and harassment because of defamation laws in 2023. Activists, especially women fighting for gender equality and political changes, could be labeled as threats simply for demanding change.

This bill does not offer protection—it offers control. If laws are meant to protect democracy, they should safeguard free speech, not make it a crime. We do not need new ways to silence voices—we need real enforcement of existing laws that protect people, not punish them. We need a system that upholds justice, not fear. Will we let our voices be silenced, or will we stand against this growing threat to our democracy?

Section 20 (1): Government control over digital space

Section 20 (1) prohibits the sharing of secret information, potentially stopping journalists and whistleblowers from exposing corruption or governance failures. Instead of holding the powerful accountable, this law protects those in power by making it a crime to speak out. How will citizens ensure openness when the government itself decides what remains “secret”?

Adding to the concern, the government proposes a “Quick Response Team” with unchecked power to act against social media users—an emergency-level mechanism being misused to police opinions rather than respond to genuine crises. Who will monitor this team's actions? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse? In a democracy, should questioning authority be treated as a crime?

The bill enables a surveillance state disguised as regulation. Instead of protecting citizens from real threats, it strips away their right to express, criticize, and demand accountability. Is this the future of digital freedom in our country—where questioning power is outlawed, but those in power can manipulate the system without consequence?

A step backward for women and youths

My efforts to advocate the basic rights of women during my early period of leadership brought me persistent online harassment and opposition, particularly from men living in my community. The new legislation will make no difference unless the current rules receive proper enforcement. We require genuine action, which entails both keeping existing laws in force and holding those responsible for crimes accountable and safeguarding those standing up for justice. The use of legislation should never serve as a tool for denying people their right to disagree. People will not succeed in silencing those who choose to speak out.

For young leaders navigating Nepal’s political landscape, this law presents yet another barrier. Social media has been a powerful equalizer, allowing new voices to challenge established hierarchies. The strict regulation of online platforms, together with tools to silence political opposition, would erase all the recent political progress toward inclusivity. This measure gives the government control of public speech by both scaring citizens into silence and limiting their freedom to speak out.

As a society striving for gender equality, governance openness, and civic empowerment, we must ask: Do we want a future where new leaders are silenced before they even begin?