Research On Internet Regulation And Penal Code Enforcement In Nepal
Legal Framework in Nepal for Internet Regulation
Electronic Transactions Act (ETA), 2008
Criminalizes publication or display of material online that is obscene, defamatory, or likely to jeopardize public morality or harmony.
Sections relevant to criminal liability: Section 47 (publication of illegal or offensive content), Sections 46 & 76 (hacking, identity misuse).
Telecommunications Act, 1996
Penalizes unauthorized access to telecom systems (e.g., call bypass, hacking).
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Sections dealing with fraud, defamation, insult to religion, and public mischief can extend to digital media.
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Guarantees freedom of expression (Article 17), but allows reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and harmony.
Case Studies
Case 1: Call Bypass Case – Supreme Court, 2022
Facts:
Two individuals in Kavre were operating a VoIP system to bypass international call tariffs, causing losses to Nepal Telecom and government revenue.
Legal Provisions:
Telecommunications Act – unauthorized operation of telecom system.
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court held that call bypass constitutes a serious offense.
Conviction included imprisonment of up to five years.
Significance:
Shows criminal liability extends to misuse of digital communication systems.
Establishes precedent for telecom-based cybercrime enforcement.
Case 2: Online Publication under ETA – Journalist Arrest, 2013
Facts:
A journalist posted content online that was deemed offensive to a community, resulting in arrest under ETA Section 47.
Legal Provisions:
ETA Section 47 – publication of material contrary to public morality or harming social harmony.
Court Findings:
The journalist was arrested and released on bail.
The case emphasized that intent to offend or disrupt social harmony is key.
Significance:
Demonstrates how online publications are subject to criminal liability.
Highlights tension between freedom of speech and regulation of online content.
Case 3: Social Media Hate Speech Case – 2020
Facts:
A Facebook user posted derogatory memes targeting multiple religious communities, leading to public unrest.
Legal Provisions:
ETA Section 47 (publication of offensive content)
Muluki Criminal Code Section 159 (insulting religion or public harmony)
Court Findings:
The court noted clear intent to provoke tension.
Sentence: 9 months imprisonment and mandatory community awareness program.
Significance:
Online acts can have the same consequences as physical public acts.
Intent and potential impact on public order are critical in prosecution.
Case 4: Cyber Harassment – Rina Shrestha v. Raju Dangol
Facts:
The accused used the victim’s photos to create fake profiles and defame her online.
Legal Provisions:
ETA Sections 46 & 47 (unauthorized access and publication of offensive material)
Court Findings:
Offense constituted digital harassment and identity misuse.
Court imposed fines and ordered deletion of content.
Significance:
Illustrates protection against online identity misuse.
Shows criminal law enforcement adapting to internet-era harassment.
Case 5: Constitutional Review of ETA – 2025
Facts:
A writ petition challenged the constitutionality of ETA Section 47, arguing it violated free expression rights.
Legal Provisions:
Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal
ETA Section 47
Court Findings:
The Supreme Court ruled freedom of expression is not absolute.
ETA Section 47 was upheld as constitutional because it regulates speech that can harm public order and harmony.
Significance:
Validates state authority to regulate online content.
Balances freedom of expression with societal protection.
Case 6: Privacy and Surveillance Case – Unauthorised Access to Phone Data
Facts:
A telecom company provided user call details without court authorization; the user filed a writ petition.
Legal Provisions:
Telecommunications Act
Constitution (right to privacy)
Court Findings:
Unauthorized access to personal communication is illegal.
Telecom providers must follow due legal process to release data.
Significance:
Reinforces privacy protections in internet and telecom regulation.
Demonstrates interplay between criminal law, telecom regulation, and fundamental rights.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Intent and Impact: Criminal liability hinges on intent and effect on public order, harmony, or individuals.
Medium Agnostic: Laws apply to social media, websites, emails, and even telecom systems.
Online = Offline: Courts treat online misconduct as seriously as in-person offenses.
Freedom vs Regulation: Constitutional rights exist but are limited by public interest concerns.
Emerging Areas: Privacy, identity misuse, and platform responsibility are increasingly recognized.
RELATED Blog
comments