Prosecution Of Cyberbullying And Online Defamation In Nepal
1. Dil Bhusan Pathak Case (2025)
Facts: Dil Bhusan Pathak, a journalist, posted a YouTube segment alleging financial misconduct by a prominent political figure. The content was claimed to be defamatory and provocative, potentially inciting public hostility.
Legal Issue: The case was registered under Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act (ETA), which criminalizes publishing content via electronic media that can cause social unrest, hatred, or defame someone.
Court Action: The Kathmandu District Court allowed the case to proceed but granted interim bail. The High Court emphasized due process and stated authorities should not arrest without proper legal procedure.
Outcome: Pathak received bail and the case highlighted the tension between freedom of expression and regulation of online defamatory content.
Significance: This case sets a precedent for prosecution of journalists or individuals under cybercrime law for online content, showing that social media and video platforms fall under the ETA.
2. Makwanpur Online Harassment Case (2024)
Facts: A man created fake social media profiles to post private photos and videos of his estranged wife, causing her public humiliation and emotional distress.
Legal Issue: This was treated as cyber defamation and harassment under the ETA and the Criminal Code’s provisions on privacy invasion.
Court Action: The Cyber Bureau traced the IP addresses, linked the offender to the posts, and filed a formal case.
Outcome: The man was arrested, and the court emphasized that sharing private content without consent online constitutes a crime, not just a civil wrong.
Significance: Demonstrates how cyberbullying in the form of doxxing, revenge porn, or harassment is prosecutable under Nepalese law.
3. Ajeya Raj Sumargi vs. Kantipur Publications (2020)
Facts: Businessman Ajeya Raj Sumargi filed a defamation case against Kantipur Publications for allegedly publishing articles questioning the legitimacy of his financial assets. Online versions of these articles amplified the potential defamation.
Legal Issue: Criminal defamation under the Muluki Criminal Code.
Court Action: The Kathmandu District Court examined whether the published material could legally be considered defamatory.
Outcome: The court dismissed Sumargi’s claim, holding that the articles fell within journalistic reporting standards and public interest.
Significance: Shows how courts distinguish between malicious defamation and legitimate reporting, even when content is shared online.
4. Nepalkhabar & Bizmandu Online Deletion Orders (2025)
Facts: Two online news portals were ordered by the Kathmandu District Court to remove articles allegedly defaming a high-ranking official, Santosh Narayan Shrestha. Simultaneously, an arrest warrant was issued for the journalist Dil Bhusan Pathak for related charges.
Legal Issue: Online defamation and potential incitement under the ETA and Criminal Code.
Court Action: Immediate deletion of content was mandated, with a warning against publishing similar content in the future.
Outcome: Portal administrators complied with the deletion orders.
Significance: This case illustrates how courts can regulate online platforms directly and enforce content removal, combining criminal and administrative oversight.
5. Former Government Secretary Upadhyaya Case (2020)
Facts: A former government secretary posted critical opinions on social media regarding government officials and policies.
Legal Issue: Authorities filed charges under the ETA for online content allegedly defaming public figures and causing social unrest.
Court Action: The District Attorney initiated proceedings to hold the former official accountable under cybercrime provisions.
Outcome: Case is ongoing; proceedings highlighted the applicability of cybercrime law even to government officials’ social media posts.
Significance: Demonstrates that online defamation laws in Nepal can apply broadly, including to posts criticizing public figures, raising freedom-of-expression concerns.
6. Prakash Dangol & Hari Panta Cases (2022 Study)
Facts: Two cases involved individuals posting derogatory content about others online. Plaintiffs claimed the content was defamatory.
Legal Issue: Courts examined whether these cases should proceed under the ETA or traditional defamation laws.
Court Action: After investigation, courts held that despite online publication, the cases should be tried under the Criminal Code for defamation rather than ETA cybercrime provisions.
Outcome: Charges were dismissed or redirected to the appropriate legal framework.
Significance: Highlights legal ambiguity in Nepal regarding whether cyberbullying or online defamation should fall under cybercrime laws or traditional defamation statutes.
Key Observations
Legal Overlap: Many cases show overlap between cybercrime law (ETA) and traditional criminal defamation, causing uncertainty in prosecution.
Institutional Role: Cyber Bureau plays a central role in investigation, tracing digital footprints, and coordinating with the judiciary.
Victim Protection: Courts increasingly consider psychological harm and reputational damage from online harassment.
Freedom of Expression: Cases involving journalists or public officials show tension between online speech rights and defamation/cybercrime provisions.
Emerging Cyberbullying Recognition: Although Nepal has no explicit “cyberbullying law,” courts prosecute harassment, doxxing, and revenge-porn type cases under ETA and privacy-related criminal provisions.
RELATED Blog
comments