The bill prepared by the government to prevent the misuse of social media and to regulate the platform has been criticized everywhere. In the bill registered in the National Assembly on Tuesday, social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, Tiktok will be fined up to 1 million rupees and users will be fined up to 15 lakh rupees and imprisoned for up to 5 years if they do not comply with the prescribed conditions.

Article 17 guarantees freedom of thought and expression and Article 19 guarantees the right to communication, Article 28 also protects the right to privacy and dignity of individuals. Therefore, there is no doubt that state laws should be drawn against abuse in the name of criticism in or out of social media. The constitution is clear that

communication, whether personal or public, trespassing on the reputation of any person or organization is a crime and the person who speaks or writes should be held accountable for such actions. However, any step taken by the state to regulate social networks cannot go beyond the scope of the democratic constitution and the constitution has not given permission to enact such laws. But Unfortunately, the bill proposed by the government now tries to exceed the democratic practice and constitutional scope, criticizing it and serious debate is necessary in the media, social networks and also in the parliament. 

, abuse of information technology is definitely a matter of social and legal concern. Because the tendency of harassing, harassing, threatening, and dehumanizing using social media has become dominant. Similarly, the enterprise of defaming a person's reputation by making 'deepfake' videos using artificial intelligence (AI) has also flourished.

Moreover, the trend of asking for cash ransom (extortion) and sexually exploiting (sextortion) by confusing women and teenagers by collecting personal details, photos or videos or creating them themselves has persecuted many and ruined the lives of some. Similarly, the common people who are shocked by the trend of 'hacking' someone's social network account, stealing data, posting objectionable content or stealing money, expect the laws and mechanisms of the state to be effective and active against such trends, although the common people are not affected by many such actions until the big ones of the state are caught. have been drinking. 

Since social media is a means of public communication, every person should be socially responsible and legally responsible for the message or dialogue that appears on it. There is still a legal arrangement to take responsibility for expressions expressed at home, office, chowk, square or any other place. There is no doubt that if any person or institution is abused in the name of criticism, action should be taken according to the law. However, in the 'bill made to regulate the operation, use and regulation of social networks', it seems that the intention is to prohibit criticism of the ruler rather than to protect the reputation of individuals.

For example, as abstract as section 27 of the Bill is, its content is also dangerous. In this section, 'one should not transmit false or misleading information in such a way as to disturb the sovereignty, geographical integrity, national unity and security of Nepal or to be adverse to the national interest, the person who commits such an offense shall be punished according to the prevailing law, and if the punishment is not mentioned in the prevailing law, imprisonment for up to five years or 15 A fine of up to one lakh rupees or both will be punished.

Undoubtedly, the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country are paramount, but who is going to measure what expressions have disturbed it? In the system adopted by us, any citizen has the right to question the country's system, structure, laws or constitution. Whoever makes a law with any meaning, tomorrow this law will become a weapon of the government and will suppress the rights of the citizens. This is unacceptable in a democratic state. 

Similarly, those who transmit false or misleading information through fake ID have been proposed to be punished with imprisonment up to 5 years and a fine of up to 1.5 million rupees. No person shall be exempt from accountability and legal liability, whether the identity used is fake or real. However, the government has proposed a 'rapid response team', bypassing the established legal arrangements for handling complaints, investigations and prosecutions. Such a team will increase the misuse of the law at the behest of the government rather than stopping the misuse of social media. Therefore, the parallel structure and practice of taking away the freedom of the citizen in the name of protecting the dignity of the citizen is unacceptable.  Many provisions in the

bill have been left open for the government to interpret and misuse according to its own wishes. In section 9 of the bill, it is said that content that spreads superstition shall not be disseminated. It is also said that false and misleading information will not be spread. Beliefs - superstitions, false or true are areas of understanding, about which not everyone can agree. Awareness can be adopted in such matters, but punishing is another atrocity.  The

bill is said to 'disrupt the relations between the federal units' and it is also sought to criminalize debates and disputes between the Union and the provinces and between the provinces and the provinces. The debate is still ongoing for legal clarity on the rights and responsibilities between the federal, provincial and local levels as provided by our constitution. By failing to enact essential laws, the government has confused the federal units themselves. However, broad debate is inevitable even when policies and laws are made or implemented. There will be many dimensions of argument in the debate.