The Social Media Regulation Bill, recently tabled in Parliament has sparked debate over digital rights in Nepal. While the government justifies that the bills are necessary to combat misinformation, cybercrime and threats to national security, its provisions raise serious concerns about free speech, privacy, and the right to anonymity. Today online platforms serve as a pivotal space for political discourse, activism, and journalism making these issues even more pressing.
Understanding the right to anonymity
Anonymity, the condition of being anonymous, in cyberspace protects an individual's identity, especially when talking over sensitive topics, engaging in political discourse, or whistleblowing against government misconduct. In modern democracies the right to anonymity is a fundamental ground of digital privacy and freedom of expression, allowing individuals to communicate, express opinions and access information without fear of undue surveillance or retaliation.
This concept is directly linked with the constitutional fundamental rights enshrined in Article 17 (freedom of expression) and Article 28 (the right to privacy). International human rights instruments, such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
How the Social Media Bill violates the right to anonymity
Nepal’s recent social media regulation bill introduces provisions that potentially infringe upon this right, raising significant concerns .The bill proposes compulsory identity verification for users on social media and digital platforms, section 27(2) states that operating a fake or anonymous account to spread misinformation could result in three months of imprisonment or a fine of up to NPR 50,000.This requirement forces individuals to disclose their personal details, eliminating the ability to remain anonymous online. Section 27(3) increases the punishment to five years in prison and NPR 1.5 million in fines if the anonymous account is deemed to harm national sovereignty, unity, or public harmony, the ambiguity in the bill regarding terms like “misinformation” and “threats to public order” grants authorities’ arbitrary power, opens the door for misuse and creates a climate of fear and self-censorship.
This contradicts global legal precedents, including the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, which underscores that anonymity is essential for democratic participation. Similarly, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has consistently upheld the importance of privacy and anonymity as fundamental to the right to freedom of expression. In General Comment No. 34, the Committee emphasized that any restrictions on freedom of expression must be necessary and proportionate and should not undermine the right itself. Policies that facilitate extensive surveillance without adequate safeguards risk violating these principles.
Nepal’s Cyber Security Bill takes a deterrent approach rather than a protective one, infringing upon fundamental rights, including the right to anonymity. While cybersecurity regulations are necessary to tackle cybercrimes, they should not come at the cost of individual freedoms. The bill requires revisions to ensure that security measures are balanced with privacy rights, transparency, and accountability. Instead of compulsory identity disclosures, the government should focus on data protection laws, encryption rights, and judicial oversight to prevent the misuse of cyber laws for political or authoritarian control.
Pratikshya Aganja
Kathmandu School of Law
