In September 2025, Nepal faced massive public protests triggered by a ban on social media apps and websites, where a total of 26 applications were taken down. The protests turned violent and have been dubbed the ‘Gen-Z’ protests. The crackdown also trailed the viral #NepoKid campaigns highlighting elite privilege and youth discontent. The ban had been enacted under the Supreme Court’s directive to ensure accountability of social media platforms. Nevertheless, it has been transformed into a censorship tool, far exceeding the Court’s intent.

The Legal Framework: A Contentious Push for Control

The legal lynchpin for the ban is the Directive on Regulating the Use of Social Media, 2080 (2023), the objective of which was to curb misinformation, hate speech, and other online harms, making social media platforms more accountable under Nepali law. This directive requires social media companies to register with the Department of Information and Broadcasting, establish a liaison office in Nepal, and appoint a grievance officer. Notably, this directive is a direct consequence of a Supreme Court order by Justices Dhungana and Thapa mandating the regulation of unregistered social media and OTT platforms.

However, enforcing a complete shutdown is where the legal argument falls apart. This ban is disproportionate and unconstitutional. It has a chilling effect on citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal. Even though the right is not absolute, in Madhav Basnet v Ministry of Information and Communication (2002), the Supreme Court held that restrictions on freedom of expression must be reasonable and proportionate, and cannot extinguish the right altogether. This approach was reaffirmed in 2006 when provisions of the 1992 Broadcasting Act and the 1991 Publications Act were struck down for permitting arbitrary censorship. By simultaneously blocking 26 platforms, including popular ones such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Reddit, the Nepali government effectively crumbled the primary spaces for communication, business, association, and organization in the digital age. Hence, the ban cannot withstand either of the tests of reasonableness and proportionality entrenched in Nepal’s constitutional jurisprudence.

Nepal’s Breach of International Legal Commitments 

Moreover, the government’s actions place Nepal in direct breach of its international legal commitments as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in particular Article 19. International human rights jurisprudence clarifies that any restriction on these rights must pursue a legitimate aim and, crucially, satisfy the test of “necessity” and “proportionality.” The UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has consistently held that restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and meet the strict tests of necessity and proportionality. Additionally, it has condemned internet shutdowns as being contrary to international human rights law. Furthermore, General Comment No. 34 (para. 34) emphasizes that restrictions must be the least intrusive means available. A ban that silences millions of users, regardless of context or conduct, does not meet this threshold, nor is it narrowly tailored. Instead, it transforms a regulatory measure into a censorship tool, collapsing the space for free speech, peaceful assembly, and democratic dissent.

Determining the Contours of Internet Access

Although the government did not cut internet connectivity outright, blocking major platforms had a functionally similar effect, depriving citizens of their primary spaces for speech, association, and civic participation. The right to internet access, increasingly recognised in international practice, goes beyond mere connectivity to encompass meaningful access to the platforms that make the internet a vehicle for rights. Constitutional guarantees under Article 17 of Nepal’s Constitution become hollow without them. As the UNHRC has affirmed, “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online.”

Internet and social media crackdowns have taken place in the last five years throughout the Indian Subcontinent in India, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Although there have been resolutions highlighting the importance of such access, there remains a lack of further analysis on what constitutes “substantive” internet access. The UN does not provide a comprehensive definition of the right to internet access. This ambiguity in the definition of rights of access has created a legal vacuum where it is convenient to curb the freedoms on the internet rather than curtail the Right to the internet. As per the UN Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue, “access to the internet is not a right in itself but a means to exercise a range of human rights.”

The resuscitated social media, after the ban was lifted, elected Nepal’s first female Prime Minister through the popular gaming app ‘Discord’, which reflects the force of social media as a modern public square.