Nepal has no dedicated social media statute. As of this writing, platforms and users are governed by the Directive on Regulating the Use of Social Media, 2080 (2023) — an executive directive, not an act of Parliament — alongside the Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006). The Social Media Bill that would have replaced this arrangement was withdrawn from Parliament in February 2026.
What Governs Social Media in Nepal Today
Two instruments do the work, and they are very different in legal weight:
The Directive on Regulating the Use of Social Media, 2080 (2023). Issued by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, this requires social media platforms operating in Nepal to register with the Ministry, establish a local point of contact, and designate a grievance-handling officer. It also asserts content-removal authority. Critically, it is a directive — issued by the executive under existing authority, not legislation passed by Parliament.
The Electronic Transactions Act, 2063 (2006). Nepal’s actual governing statute for electronic conduct. Its offense provisions — including Section 47 on publishing illegal material electronically — remain the primary basis for prosecuting online conduct, and they apply to social media activity. See our overview of cyber law in Nepal for how these provisions operate in practice.
Why “Directive, Not Statute” Is the Central Legal Problem
This distinction is not academic. A directive issued by a ministry does not carry the democratic legitimacy of legislation, was not subject to parliamentary debate or committee scrutiny, and can be amended or reinterpreted by the executive without returning to Parliament. When a directive is used as the basis for restricting access to communication platforms used by millions, the gap between the instrument’s legal weight and the scale of its effect becomes the core issue.
That gap is precisely what produced Nepal’s most serious digital-rights crisis to date — and it has not been closed. With the Social Media Bill withdrawn, the Directive 2080 remains the operative framework.
How Nepal Got Here
- 2075 (2018–19)Information Technology Bill, 2075 introduced — then abandonedContained platform-registration and content-removal provisions. Withdrawn following sustained public and civil-society opposition. Nepal’s first attempt at a comprehensive digital statute.
- Kartik 2080 (Nov 2023)TikTok bannedThe ban lasted roughly a year before being lifted after the platform moved toward compliance. The first use of executive authority to block a major platform in Nepal.
- Mangsir 2080 (Nov 2023)Directive on Regulating the Use of Social Media, 2080 issuedIntroduced mandatory platform registration with the Ministry, a local contact point, and a grievance officer — via executive directive rather than legislation. Still in force today.
- Magh 2081 (Jan 2025)Social Media Bill, 2081 registered in the National AssemblyWould have given the registration regime a statutory basis, with penalties reported up to Rs 2.5 million and multi-year prison terms. Criticized by press-freedom and digital-rights organizations as overly broad.
- 4 September 202526 platforms blocked for non-registrationFacebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Signal and others were blocked, citing Directive 2080. TikTok and Viber were exempt, having already registered.
- 8–12 September 2025Protests, resignation, and the ban reversedYouth-led protests escalated into nationwide unrest. The Prime Minister resigned on 9 September and the ban was lifted the same day. Reported casualties exceeded 70 dead and 2,000 injured. An interim government took office on 12 September.
- 3 February 2026Social Media Bill withdrawn from ParliamentThe Cabinet withdrew the bill amid continued criticism of its scope. Nepal returned to being governed by Directive 2080 and the Electronic Transactions Act — with no dedicated statute.
Hover or tap any entry for detail.
What This Means for Platforms and Businesses
If you operate a platform with Nepali users: the registration expectation under Directive 2080 has not gone away with the bill’s withdrawal. The September 2025 episode demonstrated that non-registration can result in access being blocked. Registration, a local contact point, and a grievance-handling mechanism remain the practical compliance baseline.
If you run a business that depends on these platforms: the underlying regulatory uncertainty is a genuine operational risk, not a theoretical one. Businesses whose customer acquisition runs through platforms that can be blocked by executive decision should understand that exposure.
If you are a user facing harmful content: your remedies come from the Penal Code, the Electronic Transactions Act, and the Civil Code — not from any social media statute. There is currently no statutory takedown timeline binding platforms in Nepal. See social media defamation in Nepal and how to file a cyber crime complaint for the practical routes available.
How Other Jurisdictions Have Approached This
The comparison matters because it shows the alternatives are not simply “regulate” or “do not regulate.” The European Union’s Digital Services Act (2022) imposes graduated obligations scaled to platform size, with an independent enforcement structure and defined appeal rights. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (2023) assigns enforcement to Ofcom, an independent regulator, rather than to a ministry. Australia has legislated age-based access restrictions through Parliament.
What these share is not leniency — the DSA carries penalties reaching a percentage of global revenue. It is that the obligations, the enforcement body, and the appeal routes are all defined in legislation, and enforcement sits with a body at arm’s length from the government of the day. Nepal’s current arrangement has none of these features.
What Comes Next
The withdrawal of the Social Media Bill resolves an immediate concern but leaves the underlying gap open: Nepal still regulates a domain affecting an estimated 14.8 million social media users through executive directive rather than statute. Any replacement legislation will face the same core design questions — whether enforcement sits with an independent regulator or a ministry, whether obligations scale to platform size, and whether takedown decisions carry a right of appeal.
We monitor this area closely and advise clients under the framework currently in force, not the one that may be proposed next.
About the Author
This analysis is by Ananda Gautam, Managing Partner and cyber policy consultant at Kaligandaki Law Firm, who writes on Nepal’s technology policy and contributed as Research Associate to the Nepal Telecommunications Authority’s study on ICT/telecom convergence. A longer treatment of these arguments was published in Onlinekhabar: Nepal’s confusion over social media regulation: intentional control or promotion? (January 2026, in Nepali).
Speak With Our Attorneys
Contact Kaligandaki Law Firm to discuss platform registration and compliance in Nepal, content-removal requests, or a cyber matter. For technology business compliance, see our IT Law practice; for telecom regulatory questions, see Telecommunications Law.
