Research On Freedom Of Speech And Electoral Integrity In Nepal

15 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. “No, Not Again” Social Media Campaign Case (2022)

Facts: Before the federal and provincial elections in 2022, a social media campaign titled “No, Not Again” urged voters to reject certain veteran politicians. The campaign used Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms, showing political leaders’ images and messages encouraging public dissent.

Legal Issue: The Election Commission of Nepal (ECN) warned that the campaign violated the Election Code of Conduct and the Electronic Transactions Act, potentially punishable with fines and imprisonment.

Decision: The Supreme Court of Nepal issued an interim order protecting the campaigners from any action by the ECN, emphasizing that political criticism and citizen-led campaigns are a form of expression protected under Article 17 of the Constitution.

Significance: This case affirmed that freedom of speech in the electoral context is robust, even for negative campaigning, as long as it does not involve illegal activity like defamation or incitement.

2. Case on Section 47 of the Electronic Transactions Act (2024–2025)

Facts: A writ petition challenged the constitutionality of Section 47, which criminalized publishing materials online that could harm public morality, communal harmony, or national integrity. Petitioners argued that the law was vague and suppressed free speech.

Legal Issue: Does Section 47 violate Article 17 (freedom of opinion and expression) of the Constitution?

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that restrictions on speech are permissible if they serve legitimate purposes, such as protecting sovereignty, public order, or national security.

Significance: This clarified that freedom of speech is not absolute in Nepal, and restrictions must meet constitutional tests of reasonableness and necessity. In electoral contexts, this allows authorities to regulate misinformation or harmful online content while respecting legitimate expression.

3. ECN Warning Against Negative Campaigning (2022)

Facts: The Election Commission warned social media users and political activists against “negative campaigning” prior to elections, threatening fines and imprisonment.

Legal Issue: Did the ECN overstep constitutional bounds by attempting to regulate political expression during election campaigns?

Decision: Though no permanent ruling was issued, the controversy led to the Supreme Court intervening in cases like the “No, Not Again” campaign to ensure citizens’ rights were not violated.

Significance: The case illustrates the tension between electoral regulation (protecting fair elections) and free expression. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance.

4. Silence Period Enforcement Case (2022)

Facts: The ECN enforced a 48-hour silence period before polling, prohibiting any political campaigning to give voters a neutral period to consider their choices.

Legal Issue: Does a silence period infringe the constitutional right to free speech?

Decision: The courts upheld the measure as a reasonable restriction to maintain electoral integrity.

Significance: This case demonstrates that temporary, narrowly tailored restrictions on speech can be justified in the interest of fair elections.

5. Case of Misinformation on Social Media (2022)

Facts: During the elections, individuals were accused of spreading false information about candidates on social media. The ECN threatened sanctions under the Election Code of Conduct.

Legal Issue: Can the state regulate online speech to prevent misinformation without violating freedom of expression?

Decision: The Supreme Court emphasized that regulation is permissible if it targets false or harmful information that undermines the fairness of elections, but not legitimate political criticism.

Significance: Sets a precedent for balancing electoral integrity with free expression in digital media.

6. Case on Criticism of Government Policies Before Elections (2019)

Facts: A journalist published articles criticizing government policies during an election year. Authorities attempted to block publications citing public order concerns.

Legal Issue: Does criticizing the government during elections fall under protected speech?

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that journalistic critique, including commentary on government policies or politicians, is protected under the Constitution, as long as it does not incite violence or defamation.

Significance: Reaffirms the principle that freedom of the press and political speech are essential for informed elections.

7. Contempt Proceedings Against Former Justices (2021)

Facts: Former Supreme Court justices publicly criticized the dissolution of the House of Representatives. They faced contempt proceedings for speaking publicly on a political matter.

Legal Issue: Was their public statement a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression?

Decision: The Court acknowledged that criticism of political actions, even by former officials, falls under protected speech unless it threatens law and order.

Significance: Confirms that citizens and former officials can participate in public debate without undue restriction, reinforcing democratic discourse.