According to Nirajan Pandey, information officer of the Supreme Court, many PILs have been filed against the government's decision in the Supreme Court and a decision on registration will be made on Sunday. According to the case branch of the Supreme Court, 5 writs have been submitted.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
With the government's decision to shut down social media, stakeholders and legal experts have criticized it as a wrong decision.
Those who criticized the government's decision claimed that banning it would be an unconstitutional step, saying that social media is a right of the people linked to freedom of expression and fundamental rights.
The government has claimed to have taken the decision based on the Supreme Court's decision while banning social networks. The last two judgments published on July 30 and last Wednesday talked about the regulation and registration of social networks. At the same time, the Supreme Court said to make the necessary laws for this . But the government has preferred to ban rather than make laws.
The decision on the writ registration reached the Supreme Court will be on Thursday. One of them is Senior Advocate Dinesh Tripathi .
He has claimed in a writ that the government's decision restricts the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and freedom of expression. Claiming that the Nepal government's decision is prima facie illegal and unconstitutional, he claimed that article 17(2)(a) of the constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression to every Nepalese citizen, article 19 the right to communication and article 27 the right to information. Freedom of thought and expression is the heart and soul of democracy. And it has been claimed in the petition that democracy cannot be alive and active in the absence of open discussion and deliberation. Freedom cannot be restricted and As the decision of the Government of Nepal is prima facie contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the demand that the interim order should be issued has been made in the writ.
According to Nirajan Pandey, information officer of the Supreme Court, many PILs have been filed against the government's decision in the Supreme Court and a decision on the registration will be made on Sunday. According to the case branch of the Supreme Court, 5 writs have been submitted. According to the case branch, this number will increase by Sunday. Legal experts have commented that the Supreme Court should register and review the matter as it is related to the freedom of expression of the people. Santoshbabu Sigdel, executive director of Digital Right Nepal, said that the detailed process should be seen.
He said that this is the subject of a judicial trial. He argues that since the Supreme Court has once banned the court from making laws and regulations, the court should look into why the government's work was not done according to the law.
Cyber law expert and former judge Srikrishna Bhattarai claimed that since the government has done the work under the guise of guidelines by making laws, this work will be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court and it will be reviewed by the court as it also involves the freedom of expression of the people. He claimed that social networks provided free services and when it was closed, the unemployment rate would also increase.
In this way, the social networks blocked by the government are paying taxes and they are listed in an agency of the Nepal government, so it cannot be said that the government has been neglected, he said.
'This is associated with freedom of expression . If they don't come to register, it will affect us financially,' he said. Since the government has taken control measures without making a law, this decision cannot be said to be legal.
Human Rights Commission's request to reconsider the decision
Similarly, the National Human Rights Commission has requested to reconsider the government's decision to close social networks. Commission spokesman Dr. Tikaram Pokharel has issued a statement saying that the government's decision has been taken seriously and requested the government.
The decision to close the social network not only affects the users of the social network but also goes against the essence of the democratic governance system and the values of human rights . The government has the duty, obligation and right to legally register, list or regulate any service provider before operating the service.'' It is clear that it will also be against rights. ’
