Some of the provisions of the bill introduced by the government in the federal parliament to regulate the operation, use and regulation of social networks reflect the intention to curtail citizens' freedom of press, expression and internet as guaranteed by the constitution.

The Minister of Communications and Information Technology, Prithvisubba Gurung, has given the purpose and reason that the bill has been introduced because it is necessary to create laws to regulate and regulate the operation and use of social networks in a dignified, safe and orderly way, to promote social harmony, cultural tolerance and good governance through the correct and orderly use of social networks. However, it is clear from some of its clauses that the bill seeks to attack the vertical media.

It is mentioned in the theoretical concept paper of the bill submitted to the Parliament by Minister Gurung that no suggestion has been made regarding the law-making after being studied and investigated by an agency. While making any public law, the state should study enough to find out what problem it is meant to solve, but not doing any study before making a strict criminal law is childishness shown by the government. The document presented in the parliament seems to have tricked the government and brought the bill. 

The source of this bill, which has been accepted so far but cannot be accepted, is dangerous. That is, India's Information Technology Act, 2000 and Bangladesh's Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006 are considered as model laws. We know about the political system of Bangladesh. The provisions of the Act have been criticized by human rights activists worldwide as harsh and undemocratic. Why did our government consider that act as a model? is mysterious.

In 2015, the Indian Supreme Court has canceled the provision of severe punishment for harassing messages in Section 66 'A' of India's Information Technology Act. The provision punishing 3 years in prison for sending the message was dismissed by the court saying that it curbed the freedom of thought and expression, while the government argued that the provision was only used to control cyber crime.

In the bill introduced by the government, a provision which has been rejected by the Supreme Court of India has been inserted. This has given room to question the intentions of the government. The social network platform operation permit and the conditions to be followed as well as the conditions to be followed by the citizens of the network and the offenses and punishments have shocked many. There is a provision to stop the operation of platforms that do not take permission, and if they do not comply with the conditions, the permission will be canceled and a fine of up to 25 lakh rupees will be imposed.  The main flaws of the

bill include covering different topics in one law, wording that can be interpreted, giving a judicial role to an agency of the government, closing the way for judicial review, including the existing provisions in the existing law in a stricter manner, starting with criminal prosecution. In the

bill, it is mentioned in Section 51 of the National Criminal Code 2074, that cyber bullying should not be done in Sections 224, 305 and 306 of the National Crime Code, 2074, in Sections 224, 305 and 306 of the National Crime Code, 2074.

Similarly, cyber stalking is covered in the Personal Privacy Act, 2075 and the Electronic Transactions Act, while the issue of not hacking someone's ID and information is covered in the Personal Privacy Act and the Criminal Code.

The provisions of the offenses laid down in the new bill, such as not to hack someone's ID and information, not to do phishing or impostor scams, not to do sextortion or extortion, not to spread obscene, false or misleading content, not to upload or spread fake videos, etc., are also included in the personal privacy, civil crime code.

Therefore, without confusion, it can be said that the provisions of the bill flout democratic values, limit the rights of citizens and reduce the freedom of press and expression. The bill that also touches the communication sector is not aimed at self-regulation or regulation, but it is inspired by the intention that a government employee can exercise self-interested control over whims, suppress the voice of opposition by making the press and freedom of expression users criminals, and keep citizens, society and the press sector in fear and panic.

It seems that the Press Council is trying to use Nepal as a tool like the police to shrink the freedom of the press. With these and such provisions, the social media bill has started to be portrayed as an 'anti-social' bill of the Bangladeshi model, which is not liked by the society. It seems that the government has missed the process of writing the bill. It is said that the previous government has already drafted the bill. But the bill has now reached the parliament. Whatever the government has done in this case, a mistake is a mistake. 

does not seem to care about democratic principles, methods and processes of public policy making. The principle or framework adopted by any democratic country in making policy is group equilibrium. Which envisages setting the agenda by prioritizing the issues of policy making based on the competition, balance and consensus between different interests and pressure groups. This is a way in which group competence and values ​​are more effective than bureaucratic activism. But the government did not seem to adopt this method.

Instead, it seems that this bill has been prepared by following the neo-institutionalism pattern adopted by the state system, which creates policies contrary to democratic values. In which the government assimilates the basis of its institutional concepts, principles, values ​​and beliefs while formulating public policy, regulatory (regulatory) goals are given priority. which values ​​control.

It cannot be assumed that the government brought this bill without understanding these patterns of public policy making. Because these frameworks have been described in detail in the 'Public Policy Formulation Guidelines' prepared by the Policy Research Foundation, a body of the government.

There is still an opportunity to right the wrongs and show the character of a democratic government. For that, the bill should be focused on social network platform regulation, the system of registration and license of the platform should be made easy and transparent, the system of content removal or the system of providing user data should be made transparent, responsible and judicial, the social network platform should be made responsible. On the one hand, the fact that social media is breaking our culture, tradition and society is

ing. The government has the responsibility to regulate it. For this too, the government has a chance - to withdraw the bill and rewrite its anti-democratic provisions through a wide discussion with the concerned parties and again show its democratic character by taking the bill to the parliament. The government may argue that the bill can be amended or rewritten through the parliamentary process. But looking at the recently passed Media Council Bill by the National Assembly, the Parliament also appeared to be hostile to press and freedom of expression. Because the bill has been passed against the efforts of the parliamentary committee to remove several of its flawed provisions.