The Nepal government's recent efforts to "regulate" online media through the revised "Regulations on Printing and Publications" have exposed the old administrative mindset of media control. Although the government presents this as a step to make online media responsible, the provisions of these regulations appear to be intended to curtail media freedom.

The government's claim of media management and control of misinformation is just a cover. The harsh provisions in the regulations, such as registration fees, the hassle of annual renewal, monitoring by 'local authorities' and staffing requirements, systematically affect independent journalism. The regulations are flawed from all three angles, theoretically, legally and practically, and will have an impact on democratic practice. The regulations basically need to reconsider five provisions.

First, the biggest flaw in the regulations lies in their basic legal basis. Using the regulations of the 'Printing and Publication Act' of the 1960s to control online and digital journalism, which is rapidly developing in the 21st century, is in itself a legal 'anachronism'. That is, it is out of touch with the context of time.

If the government really wants to regulate digital media, it should be guided by specific laws (such as the Media Council Act, Mass Media Bill) that are under consideration in the dissolved parliament. Trying to guide new media through the regulations of the old, print-centric act reflects a controlling mentality. This shows that the government is trying to 'layer' digital media not on the basis of modern laws and regulations, but through old administrative tricks and controls. This step is against the principles of constitutional supremacy and law-making.

The role of the Press Council should be to facilitate self-regulation, but its misuse as a ‘directive’ body to follow government orders is fatal to press freedom. Secondly, the registration fee of five thousand rupees and the renewal fee of two thousand five hundred rupees per year imposed in the regulations have been termed by stakeholders as a 'double tax system', which is completely justified. When any online media company or firm is registered as a company or firm, it has already paid a fee based on capital under the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Supplies. The Department of Information and Broadcasting is again collecting money in the name of service fee, which means forcing it to pay double revenue for the same work.

This fee is not just revenue but can also become a means of ‘filtering’ small, alternative and especially government-critical media by adding financial burdens. On top of this, the annual renewal provision promotes administrative arbitrariness. If any media outlet becomes active in criticizing the government or publishes content that is inconvenient for the government, it opens the way for the bureaucracy to delay or stall the renewal process by creating administrative obstacles. This creates a situation where the ‘sword of control’ is always hanging over the media.

Third, Sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 (i) of this regulation provides for the ‘local authority’ to monitor online media. This provision is alarming. The term ‘local authority’ is legally vague and abstract. Tomorrow, the CDO office, ward office or any other government body may interfere with the editorial freedom of media houses under the guise of this rule. This type of 'regular surveillance' 'instills fear' in journalists and indirectly promotes censorship.

Contrary to the essence of the fundamental rights protected by Articles 19 (Right to Communication), 27 (Right to Information) and 28 (Right to Privacy) of the Constitution of Nepal, this provision paves the way for external government interference in the newsroom itself. While the role of the Press Council should be to facilitate self-regulation, misusing it as a 'directive' body to follow government orders is fatal to press freedom.

Fourth, this regulation stipulates that online media outlets must have at least three employees, including an editor, and must attach a commitment letter for regular remuneration, which is against the principles of modern journalism. In today's era, even a journalist can run a powerful online portal through 'device-based journalism' without opening an office using technology. Especially for self-employed journalism, alternative and small media, the requirement to have three employees is an unnecessary financial and administrative burden.

This rule seems to discourage new and independent journalism and only encourage established large media houses. Determining the number of staff by prescribing administrative rules in this way is against the principles of editorial freedom and online operation and seems to promote monopoly in the media market.

Finally, the government has claimed that the main reason for introducing these strict rules is 'control of false information and propaganda'. The problem of increasing propaganda in Nepal is often the 'information conspiracy' created by political power centers, of which independent journalists and content producers are often the victims. The government has targeted the media that is trying to become a critical voice through regulations.