Kathmandu – The Supreme Court said the imprisonment and fine provisions set forth in the Electronic Transactions Act do not violate the Nepal Constitution.
The Constitutional Judge of the Court said that the judgment of the abolition of Article 47 of the Act said that freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, although basic, are not absolute. Therefore, the state can impose a legal curb.
Advocate Pratyush Nath Upreti raised the court's request for invalid chemistry to the section, believing it contradicts Article 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of view and speech.
However, the five-man leader led by then-chair Justice Bishowambhar Prasad Shrestha refused to accept the argument, ruling that the Constitution allows the enforcement of the law to stop hate speech and maintain public spaces.
“Article 17(2) of the Constitution guarantees the right to comment and expression, but this is not absolute.” The verdict in March last year was issued Tuesday.
“The Constitution imposes some restrictions on the exercise of rights. There are no obstacles to enacting laws within the boundaries set by the Constitution.”
A restrictive provision in this article says that no legislation should be considered to prevent legislation from any conduct that could undermine Nepal's sovereignty, territorial integrity, nationality and independence or harmonious relations between federal units or people of various castes. Make reasonable restrictions. tribes, religions or communities or caste-based discrimination or non-touchable performance or any disrespect for labor, defamation, contempt of the court, incitement to crime or any conduct that may violate public meaning or morality.
The five-member judge concluded that the restrictive constitutional provisions allow laws to ensure that rights are not abused.
The bill provides for penalties of up to Rs 100,000, which is not more than five years, or both, if a person publishes or displays any material (such as a computer) in electronic media (forbids publication or display under the law) . Likewise, it prohibits the content from being contrary to public moral or decent behavior or any material that may spread hatred or jealousy against anyone, or may endanger harmonious relations between people of various castes, tribes and communities.
“Right comes with responsibility. The ruling says that as long as it does not attack the freedom of others, it will be protected.”
Currently, the government is using the same law to act against people using social or electronic media to “defame others” or promote “indecent” content.
The full text of the judgment that endorses fines and imprisonment in the bill is a time of widespread criticism of the registration of the social media bill in parliament.
If the bill is endorsed, fines of up to Rs 10 million must be issued if social media platforms do not meet the government conditions, while users who spread misleading information may face up to five years in prison and up to Rs 1 fine. 5 million.
The bill is being considered in the National Assembly. It lists dozens of crimes that can put users in liability for fines and imprisonment.
Those who pass on false or misleading information through false identities are responsible for the worst fines: five years in prison and fines up to Rs 1.5 lakh.
However, the government has defended the bill, saying it is necessary to hold social media platform operators and users accountable and unintentionally cut freedom of speech.
