According to the Supreme Court, the Electronic Transaction Act’s provisions regarding jail time and heavy fines are constitutional.
Despite being basic, freedom of opinion and expression is not absolute, the court’s Constitutional Bench said in a writ petition to repeal Section 47 of the Act. As a result, the government can enforce legal restrictions.
The government can impose laws to control free speech, according to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
The five-member bench, which was presided over by Chief Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha at the time, rejected the claim, holding that the constitution permits the application of legislation to prevent hate speech and uphold public morality.
The full wording of the March ruling, which was made public on Tuesday, states that “the right to opinion and expression is guaranteed by Article 17(2) of the Constitution, but it is not absolute.”
The exercise of rights is subject to certain limitations provided by the constitution. Enacting legislation within the parameters established by the constitution is unhindered.
The government can impose laws to control free speech, according to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
According to the article’s restrictive provision, nothing will stop lawmakers from enacting reasonable restrictions on any actions that could jeopardize Nepal’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality, and independence; the peaceful coexistence of the federal units; the harmonious relationships between the people of different castes, tribes, religions, or communities; caste-based discrimination or untouchability; disrespect for labor; defamation; contempt of court; incitement to commit an offense; or any actions that might be against public decency or morality.
The five-member court has come to the conclusion that rules can be made to ensure that the right is not abused because of the restricted constitutional provision.
The Act stipulates that anyone who publishes or shows any anything on a computer or other electronic medium that is illegal to publish or display faces a fine of up to Rs100,000, a maximum jail sentence of five years, or both. In a same vein, it prohibits anything that goes against public morals or respectable behavior, or that could incite hatred or envy toward others, or that could endanger the goodwill among members of different castes, tribes, and communities.
“There are obligations associated with rights. According to the verdict, every right is safeguarded so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the freedom of others.
The same law is currently being used by the government to prosecute those who use electronic or social media to “defame others” or spread “indecent” content.
At a time when the KP Sharma Oli administration is being heavily criticized for registering the Social Media Bill in Parliament with provisions for severe punishments, the full language of the ruling supporting the fines and imprisonment outlined in the Act was released.
If the bill is approved, users who spread false information could be imprisoned for up to five years and fined up to Rs1.5 million, while social media companies that violate government regulations might be fined up to Rs10 million.
The National Assembly is now considering the bill. It enumerates numerous offenses for which users may face steep penalties and even jail time.
The harshest punishment is five years in prison and fines of up to Rs1.5 million for those who use a bogus identity to spread misleading or incorrect information.
However, the administration has defended the bill, claiming that there was no intention to restrict freedom of expression and that a new legislation was required to hold social media platform operators and users accountable.