Written by Alise Chavis

Introduction

On September 4, 2025 the Nepalese government enacted the 2025 Social Media Ban (“2025 Ban”), which required companies licensed in Nepal to accede to restrictive practices and greater government oversight in order to operate.¹Social Media Act (Bill), 2081 (2025) (Nepal) [hereinafter 2025 Ban]. In order to obtain a license in Nepal, social media platforms must consent to significant governmental oversight, granting the government the power to restrict content and even block the platform’s content if the government views it as contrary to the 2025 Ban.²Id. at ch. 2. The 2025 Ban requirements create blatant restrictions on information that Nepalese citizens have access to and resulted in the removal of over twenty-six platforms from the Nepalese internet space.³Samik Kharel, Lessons from Nepal on the High Cost of Controlling Online Expression, Tech Pol’y Press (Sept. 12, 2025), https://www.techpolicy.press/lessons-from-nepal-on-the-high-cost-of-controlling-online-expression/ (on file with American University International Law Review). Nepal’s overt regulation of social media platforms through the 2025 Ban violates Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) because it restricted the flow of information in a manner than hinders freedom of expression.

Background

Article 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of expression and access to information regardless of frontiers.⁴International Convention on Civil Rights and Politics art. 19, Mar. 23, 1973, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].  Nepal, as a state party to the ICCPR, is required to ensure that the freedom of expression and opinion are protected against private parties or state entities who seek to limit it.⁵Fifth and Sixth Periodic Reports of the Government of Nepal on Measures Taken to Give Effect to The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Hum. Rts. Treaty Monitoring Coordination Ctr. 4 (2021) [hereinafter Shadow Report]. Likewise, the Nepalese Constitution incorporates the country’s treaty obligations into domestic law, making this protection guaranteed by the Constitution in addition to the ICCPR.⁶Nepal [Constitution] Sept. 20, 2015, art. 3. On September 4, 2025, the 2025 Ban required platforms to apply for an operational license which forced the platforms to consent to opening local offices, appoint grievance handlers, and to censure social media content that is harmful.⁷2025 Ban, supra note 1, at 4–7. By funneling information through a singular infrastructural gateway, the Nepalese government created a centralized hub where they could exert complete authority over what information is released to the general public.⁸Kharel, supra note 3. In reaction to the legislation, twenty six platforms such as Facebook, X, TikTok, Discord, etc., who  refused to abide by the stringent requirements, were banned from use by Nepalese citizens.⁹Id. The ban restricted 14.3 million active Facebook users, 3.9 million Instagram users, 2 million LinkedIn users, and nearly 400,000 X users from freedom of expression and opinion on those frontiers.¹⁰Id.

The 2025 Ban also caused outrage among the Gen Z population (thirteen to twenty eight year-olds) who were stifled by the civil unrest caused by faulty economic practices leading to 20.8 percent in youth unemployment rate, and the lack of government accountability regarding missing persons from the 1996-2006 Civil war.¹¹Kharel, supra note 3. Therefore, when the Supreme Court determined that the requirement of registration and government monitoring was lawful, mass protests erupted lead by Gen Z population, the most prolific users of social media.¹²Nepal: Publish Reports on Violent Crackdowns on Protests, Hum. Rts. Watch (Feb. 12, 2026), https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/02/12/nepal-publish-reports-on-violent-crackdowns-on-protests (on file with American University International Law Review) [hereinafter HRW Nepal]. The protest was intended to be peaceful, however in response to the imposition of military force, it soon turned violent leading to the deaths of seventy six people and the burning of several buildings. ¹³Id.

Analysis

Nepal violated its obligations under the ICCPR because Article 19, which protects the freedom of expression and opinion, explicitly prohibits censorship of the media.¹⁴ICCPR, supra note 4, art. 19. The ICCPR does allow limited restrictions under General Comment 34 for restricted speech when necessary for a legitimate purpose and proportional through the least intrusive means.¹⁵See Comment on Article 19, Rep. UN Human Rights Committee Hundred-Second Session U.N. Doc. C/GC/34 (2011) [hereinafter General Comment 34]. However, firstly, Nepal violated its obligation because, by forcing social media platforms to implement greater restrictions on speech by censoring content, they are regulating the speech of users and disseminating all content into through a governmental acceptability standard.¹⁶Shadow Report, supra note 5, at 35. The limitations result in fewer privacy protections because accounts can no longer be anonymous, requiring users and platforms to compromise their privacy and freedom of speech.¹⁷2025 Ban, supra note 1, at 14.

Furthermore, the legislation directly affected journalists and other organizations who rely on anonymity for investigations and for sharing information with the public.¹⁸CPJ: Nepal Lawmakers Should Reject Social Media Bill Threatening Press Freedom, Comm. to Protect Journalists (Feb. 14, 2025), https://cpj.org/2025/02/cpj-nepal-lawmakers-should-reject-social-media-bill-threatening-press-freedom/ (on file with American University International Law Review) [hereinafter CPJ]. Ideals of protecting the social harmony of the country by restricting speech are not a legitimate means when the country is already in a state of unrest due to government corruption and socioeconomic unrest.¹⁹HRW Nepal, supra note 12. Restricting speech that illudes to hate, defamation or slander is not a legitimate reason to limit speech when such restrictions come during a time of societal unrest and with no concrete examples.²⁰General Comment 34, supra note 15, ¶ 34; see also, Shadow Report, supra note 5, at 36. The 2025 Ban forced platforms to conform to Nepali authorities or face removal entirely which, for users of TikTok, Facebook, X, etc. removed their avenues of opinion and expression completely.²¹Kharel, supra note 3. This is by no means the least intrusive option. Instead of addressing individual user violations within the platforms, Nepal enforces an internal control that removes the autonomy of the platforms and users who did not commit any violations.²²General Comment 34, supra note 15, ¶ 34.

Nepal’s implementation of legislation continues to show their reluctance to follow the recommendations of the ICCPR in meeting its obligations in Universal Periodic Review of 2021 where the committee concluded that Nepal was not in compliance with the treaty.²³Shadow Report, supra note 5, at 35. Within the review, the ICCPR committee mentioned the case Kalpit Parajuli vs. Nepal Government, where the court found that freedom of speech has limitations and cannot be tolerated to the detriment of peace and non-discrimination.²⁴Shadow Report, supra note 5, at 37. While the government claimed the legislation was implemented to create digital accountability and protect social harmony, it was not implemented with the least intrusive means as required under General Comment 34.²⁵2025 Ban, supra note 1, at 4–7. Instead of independently monitoring the conduct of individual users who are inciting social disharmony, the Nepali government took the easy route by forcing companies to monitor for the government’s interest and by requiring citizens to self-censor to avoid fines.²⁶Id. at 4–7, 14. While the government contends that the limitations on speech and its frontiers were implemented to protect the social harmony of the country, Nepal’s arbitrary attack on speech fails the proportionality test in General Comment 34–reemphasizing that national laws cannot come at the cost of freedom of speech, expression, or opinion.²⁷Shadow Report, supra note 5, at 36 

Conclusion 

The 2025 Social Media Ban was revoked in September 2025.²⁸HRW Nepal, supra note 12. Not because the courts believe that the restriction on the banned platforms were unconstitutional, but rather because the violence within civil society was so great that there was no other choice. However, despite this case seemingly being resolved, the 2025 Social Media Ban in Nepal is just one example of what occurs when governments decide that control over public opinion and information is more important than freedom of opinion and expression. In times of societal unrest, it is the ability to have discourse that soothes the minds of the public and allows them to use diplomatic and civil means of addressing societal issues instead of the mass revolt. In a globalized society we can no longer silence the connection that citizens have with each other and the rest of the world. Discourse and critical thinking must instead be promoted so that citizens do not veer towards violence for the promotion of justice.