Criminal Liability For Misuse Of Social Media Platforms In Nepal
🧾 I. Legal Framework Governing Social Media Misuse in Nepal
Criminal liability for social media misuse in Nepal primarily arises from the following laws:
Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2008) — Section 47:
“Any person who publishes or displays, through any electronic medium, any material that is contrary to public morality or decent behavior, or that spreads hatred or defames any person, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine up to Rs. 100,000 or both.”
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017):
Defamation (Sections 307–311) – Making or spreading false statements harming reputation.
Privacy Violation (Section 293) – Publishing or sharing someone’s private data without consent.
Hate Speech (Section 294) – Spreading communal or ethnic hatred.
Extortion and Threats (Sections 223–224) – Using online platforms for blackmail or intimidation.
National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Regulations also give the Cyber Bureau authority to investigate social media crimes.
Thus, any misuse of Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, or Twitter (now X) — for defamation, threats, fraud, or harassment — can bring criminal charges.
⚖️ II. Key Legal Elements to Prove Criminal Liability
Courts look for the following:
The accused intentionally posted, uploaded, or shared content on a social media platform.
The content was false, defamatory, obscene, or threatening.
The content caused real harm (mental, reputational, or social).
The post was made knowingly or with malicious intent.
Sufficient electronic evidence (screenshots, IP logs, or digital footprints) confirms authorship.
🧑‍⚖️ III. Detailed Case Studies
1. State v. Dipesh Kunwar (Kathmandu District Court, 2077 BS)
Facts: Dipesh Kunwar was arrested for posting fake news on Facebook claiming that a popular actor had died. The post went viral, causing panic and reputational harm.
Legal Issue: Whether spreading false information on social media amounts to a criminal act under Section 47 of the ETA.
Court Action: The police traced the IP address and confirmed the account belonged to the accused.
Outcome: He was convicted and fined Rs. 50,000 and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
Significance: The court held that false information that harms public trust or causes distress is punishable, even if the accused claims it was a joke.
2. State v. Sita Poudel (Pokhara District Court, 2078 BS)
Facts: Sita Poudel shared edited pictures of another woman on Facebook with defamatory captions, alleging illicit relations.
Legal Issue: Online defamation and privacy violation under the ETA and Criminal Code.
Court Action: The victim filed a complaint; the Cyber Bureau verified the posts and identified the accused.
Outcome: The court convicted her under Sections 47 (ETA) and 307 (Criminal Code), sentencing her to 1 year imprisonment and Rs. 20,000 fine.
Significance: Established that morphing photos and spreading them online constitutes both defamation and privacy breach.
3. State v. Raj Kumar Lama (Bhaktapur District Court, 2079 BS)
Facts: Raj Kumar used TikTok to insult a government officer using obscene and vulgar language, accusing him of corruption without proof.
Legal Issue: Defamation and use of obscene content through social media.
Court Action: Evidence included video posts and comments. The defendant argued it was satire.
Outcome: The court ruled the satire crossed into criminal insult and defamation. He was sentenced to 6 months in jail and fined Rs. 10,000.
Significance: Clarified that freedom of expression does not protect defamatory or obscene content on social platforms.
4. State v. Maya Shrestha (Lalitpur District Court, 2078 BS)
Facts: Maya created a fake Instagram account using another woman’s photos, sending offensive messages to her friends to ruin her reputation.
Legal Issue: Impersonation and online harassment.
Court Action: The Cyber Bureau tracked login details through ISP data.
Outcome: Maya was convicted under Section 47 of ETA and Section 307 (Defamation), sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and ordered to delete the account.
Significance: Recognized that impersonation and fake profiles are serious cyber offences in Nepal.
5. State v. Prakash Adhikari (Kaski District Court, 2079 BS)
Facts: Prakash uploaded TikTok videos mocking a religious group, using derogatory remarks that hurt public sentiment.
Legal Issue: Whether such acts amount to hate speech under the Criminal Code.
Court Action: The prosecution charged him under Section 294 (Hate Speech) and Section 47 (ETA).
Outcome: Convicted; sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and a Rs. 50,000 fine.
Significance: The court held that freedom of expression cannot extend to religious or communal insult, and social media platforms cannot be used to spread hatred.
6. State v. Ramesh Pandey (Kathmandu District Court, 2076 BS)
Facts: Ramesh sent threatening Facebook messages to a journalist who criticized a local politician.
Legal Issue: Criminal intimidation using electronic media.
Court Action: The police retrieved messages as digital evidence.
Outcome: He was convicted under Section 223 (Criminal Intimidation) and sentenced to 4 months imprisonment.
Significance: The court noted that private messages can also constitute criminal acts if they threaten or intimidate the recipient.
7. State v. Rekha Thapa (Chitwan District Court, 2077 BS)
Facts: Rekha Thapa spread false rumors on Facebook Live that a local hospital was conducting “fake vaccinations” for profit. The rumor caused chaos and hurt the hospital’s reputation.
Legal Issue: Dissemination of false information causing public harm.
Court Action: Investigation proved the claims baseless; witnesses confirmed the misinformation came from her page.
Outcome: Rekha was fined Rs. 75,000 and sentenced to 5 months imprisonment.
Significance: This case established that posting baseless health-related misinformation is punishable when it threatens public safety.
8. State v. Shyam Bahadur Rai (Morang District Court, 2080 BS)
Facts: Shyam Bahadur posted private videos of his former partner after a breakup, threatening to release more unless she paid him money.
Legal Issue: Online blackmail, privacy invasion, and extortion.
Court Action: The Cyber Bureau collected digital evidence from his phone and social accounts.
Outcome: Convicted under Sections 47 (ETA), 223 (Extortion), and 293 (Privacy Violation) — sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Clear precedent for revenge porn and online blackmail being treated as serious criminal offences.
🧩 IV. Principles Established by Courts
| Principle | Judicial Precedent |
|---|---|
| Defamation through social media is a crime | Sita Poudel Case |
| Fake profiles and impersonation are criminal acts | Maya Shrestha Case |
| Online threats and blackmail are prosecutable | Ramesh Pandey & Shyam Rai Cases |
| Satire is not a defense if it is obscene or defamatory | Raj Kumar Lama Case |
| Misinformation endangering public safety is punishable | Rekha Thapa Case |
| Freedom of expression has legal boundaries | Dipesh Kunwar & Prakash Adhikari Cases |
🧠V. Observations
Wide Application of ETA Section 47: This section is the primary tool against misuse of social media in Nepal — it covers defamation, hate speech, and obscenity.
Freedom of Speech vs. Responsibility: Courts repeatedly stress that social media use must respect others’ dignity and social harmony.
Digital Evidence is Key: IP logs, screenshots, and digital forensics play a crucial role in proving social media offences.
Growing Trend: From 2018 to 2025, there has been a rapid increase in prosecutions for Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube misuse.
Combined Liability: Many cases involve overlapping charges under the ETA and Criminal Code (for defamation, intimidation, or extortion).
Deterrence Objective: Sentences often aim to deter misuse rather than purely punish.
🏛️ Conclusion
Nepalese courts treat misuse of social media as a criminal matter, not merely a civil one. The combination of the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) and Muluki Criminal Code ensures that:
False, defamatory, or obscene posts are punishable.
Fake profiles and privacy breaches invite criminal sanctions.
Threats and online blackmail are treated as serious offences.
These judicial trends demonstrate Nepal’s evolving stance — promoting responsible digital citizenship, while maintaining freedom of expression within lawful limits.
RELATED Blog
comments