Legal experts have commented that the government's decision to deactivate unlisted social media platforms in Nepal is motivated by the intention to stop criticism. They said that the government is going to ban the social media by misinterpreting the order given by the Supreme Court to register and regulate social networks by making laws.

Senior advocate Shambhu Thapa commented that it is serious to shut down social media based on a single guideline. This is not just a matter of tax or registration. Deprivation of fundamental rights cannot be seen only in connection with registration. Action should be taken if someone has earned income without registration. Be it national or international," he said, "Social media is the right of people to know, it is also the right to be well informed. It cannot be banned.'

Senior advocate Thapa argues that shutting down social media platforms linked to human development and intelligence should be taken as an action that adversely affects the development of a civilized society. "Supreme Court said rule of law". This does not necessarily require a law. Some things should be followed automatically,' he says, 'This applies to all government or citizens.' Mentioning that citizens are free to express themselves, Thapa said that the state should be able to accept it. "Opposition is for everyone". You can't impose bans on the basis of spreading rumours," he said. "The ruler has to rule by making the people angry. Criticism is true after listening. It is not to ban the expression itself.'

The government issued guidelines on social media in November 2080. Since then, the government had issued notices for listing five times . After the deadline set in the latest notification expired on Wednesday, the government has moved to close unlisted social media platforms.

...................................................................................................

Stopping fundamental rights cannot be seen only in connection with registration, social media is the right of people to know, to be well informed, it cannot be restricted . – Shambhu Thapa, Senior Advocate

000

 Supreme Supreme Court has said to regulate by making laws, the government has moved to disable social media by implementing the guidelines, could it not be regulated by making laws soon?-  Santoshbabu Sigdel, Executive Director, Digital Rights Nepal

 000

It is objectionable that the government hastily moves forward with the directives when the Supreme Court has asked for regulation by making a law. It should be done, for that, a law should be made first - Raman Shrestha, Senior Advocate

................................................................................................

The executive director of Digital Rights Nepal and advocate Santoshbabu Sigdel, an organization working in the field of Internet rights, claimed that the Supreme Government's order regarding social media has been misinterpreted . The Supreme Court has said to regulate by making laws. The government has moved forward by implementing the guidelines and deactivating them," he said. Couldn't it be regulated by making a law soon?''The government is not satisfied with the criticism that has been happening on social media since the past, and after the order came from the court, it is trying to use it smartly, his analysis is. "But this is an attempt to control constitutional rights," he said. Sigdel said that the intention of the government has been raised to question the intention of the government by suddenly deactivating social networks based on the guidelines while they are paying tax under the jurisdiction of Nepal. Many social networks, including Facebook, are paying taxes to the government. But why was it done so hastily for closure? The easy answer to this is criticism of the government,' he said, 'this is the government's desire to hastily regulate content.' "The Parliament is under consideration of a bill regarding this". He could have settled it and moved on. The court has also asked to make a law,'' he said, who is also a central member of the Nepal Bar Association, 'the government is moving towards control by tabling the bill and relying on baseless guidelines.'

Senior advocate and former attorney general Raman Shrestha commented that social media restrictions were taken to stop criticism. "The Supreme Court has asked to make a law, has it become a law?" He said, "There is no law, but based on the guidelines, it has been decided to ban activities related to freedom of expression and fundamental rights." Is it possible to take away the rights given by the constitution by making guidelines?' He alleges that the government took such a step because it could not see its criticism on social media including Facebook. Emphasizing that social media should be regulated and not closed, he said that a law should be made for that first.

Senior advocate Madhav Basnet has a slightly different opinion. He says that regulation should be made by law, if there is no law, the government can block social media on matters of national interest. Advocate Semant Dahal says that social networks such as Facebook and Instagram are also platforms for expressing freedom of expression and cannot be deactivated or banned without law. "Constitution means to impose mental restriction or regulation on thought and expression". But for this, a law should be made," he says, "Only Parliament can make a law. Controlling based on guidelines without making laws is an abuse of constitutional rights.

Senior Advocate Narayan Ghimire claimed that issues related to freedom of expression ensured by the constitution cannot be prevented by guidelines or guidelines. "The decision to block or deactivate social networks does not seem justified in terms of international human rights, civil rights and fundamental rights," he said, "Such actions can only be done within the scope of the federal law and the constitution." In the contempt of court case against 'Sidhakura.com', a full bench of nine judges, including then Chief Justice Vishwambhar Prasad Shrestha, issued an order in the name of the government to allow the social network to be used only after registration, the full text of which was made public on July 30.

'Online and social media platforms must be registered with the authorities and regulated by the regulatory bodies including the Press Council', the full text of the judgment says, 'In order to protect and promote press freedom in a more advanced manner, take necessary actions for policy, legal and structural reforms in the press sector.'