This interview is from our 2025 Annual Impact Report
In 2025, Nepal’s democratic crisis unfolded both online and in the streets. A nationwide social media shutdown, justified under laws aimed at curbing “misinformation” and protecting “national interests”, ignited a youth-led movement that had been organising across digital platforms. As digital rights come under increasing pressure, we are spotlighting our partner Digital Rights Nepal (DRN) for its vital work defending online freedoms and supporting those reporting on the movement.
What began as online dissent against corruption, economic inequality and political stagnation escalated into mass protests and violent repression of those demonstrations. At least 76 people were killed in the unrest and its aftermath, including protesters, police officers and prisoners, and more than 2,100 were injured. The convergence of digital mobilisation and deadly repression underscored the profound stakes for press freedom, civic space and electoral integrity in Nepal.
Can you introduce yourself and say a little bit about what DRN does as an organisation?
I’m Santosh Sigdel, Executive Director of DRN, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to safeguarding digital rights, freedom of expression, access to information, free press, and inclusive civic engagement in Nepal.
Our work encompasses research, policy engagement, digital safety training, strategic litigation, public awareness campaigns, and coalition-building with civil society and international partners to ensure that the growing influence of technology enhances rather than undermines democratic values in Nepal.
2025 was a tumultuous year for digital rights and democracy in Nepal. What key events impacted your work?
Indeed, the year was one of the most turbulent in recent memory. It was marked by an intense wave of legislative proposals and executive actions that directly challenged our work.
Major developments included the introduction of the Social Media Bill, Information Technology and Cybersecurity Bill, and Media Council Bill, alongside adoption of the National AI Policy and expansion of national ID requirements in public services.
Several proposed laws regulating digital spaces contained broad and vaguely defined offences such as harm to “national interests” or “false information”, alongside severe criminal penalties.
These provisions risked enabling censorship, chilling online expression, and expanding executive control over digital platforms.
The government’s nationwide ban on unregistered social media platforms, including Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, and X, marked a turning point. The shutdown severely disrupted communication, access to information, civic engagement, and livelihoods.
The subsequent Gen Z–led protests, the tragic loss of 76 lives, and the eventual withdrawal of the ban underscored how deeply digital spaces are embedded in democratic participation in Nepal.
For us, this meant urgent litigation support, policy advocacy, public education, and coalition-building to defend constitutional protections in digital spaces.
Have you seen coordinated disinformation or influence campaigns capitalise on the digital nature of the uprising and regime change?
Yes. We have observed coordinated disinformation and influence campaigns aimed at redirecting public anger toward specific political agendas and discrediting the interim government, civil society, and the electoral process.
Social media pages with large followings have used synthetic content to spread misinformation, and AI-powered election-focused websites have targeted specific political groups or leaders.
These campaigns fuel polarisation and erode trust, highlighting the need for media literacy, fact-checking, and accountable monitoring without suppressing free expression.
What alternative approaches would better address hate speech and disinformation while safeguarding freedom of expression?
Addressing online harms requires moving away from a control-driven mindset toward a complementary governance approach, where rights-based state regulation, platform responsibility, and civil society oversight reinforce one another.
Platforms should invest in Nepali-language moderation, culturally informed reviewers, transparency reporting, and accessible appeal mechanisms so harmful content can be addressed without suppressing legitimate speech.
Legal frameworks should clearly define harms, avoid vague provisions, prioritise civil remedies over criminal penalties, and ensure strong judicial oversight.
Cross-sector coordination, ethical self-regulation, stronger digital literacy, and regional cooperation across South Asia are also essential.
Looking ahead, what gives you hope?
Despite these challenges, we remain hopeful because of the energy and engagement of young people using digital platforms to report on corruption and demand transparency and reform.
There is growing recognition that digital rights are central to democracy and freedom of expression opening doors for meaningful change.
Visit Digital Rights Nepal’s website to learn more about there work, and learn more about Media Defence’s funded partner programme here.
