The Development and Technology Committee of the parliament has passed the information technology (IT) bill despite opposition from the main opposition party Nepali Congress (NC).
The committee's meeting on Sunday has passed the draconian bill, that treats demeaning someone on social networking sites almost on par with physical attack on the country's president, on the basis of majority.
Chairman of the committee Kalyani Khadka said the bill has been passed in accordance to regulations. "We all have accepted the fact that works should be carried out on the basis of majority in lack of consensus. There is no disagreement about the procedure," Khadka stated in the meeting. "I, therefore, urge you all to not feel bullied on the basis of majority. I urge the honorable members to pass the bill stepping on clause 181 of the regulation as the second way has to be taken."
NC lawmaker Bahadur Singh Lama put a different opinion stating that the bill will encroach freedom of citizens and compromise their fundamental rights.
CPN lawmaker Top Bahadur Rayamajhi said the bill should be passed through procedure, read majority, instead of making it hostage of indecision.
The bill, that treats demeaning someone on social networking sites almost on par with physical attack on the country's president, has been widely condemned and the government accused of terrorizing the people with the fear of a jail term to stop criticisms against the government in the social media.
The opposition parties have accused the government of trying to curtail freedom of expression.
But the ruling CPN has forced it through the committee and it will become law after being passed by the federal parliament.
The General Code has a provision of jail term of five-ten years for any kind of attack or enticement to attack on the president. The IT bill has a provision of jail term of up to five years or a fine of up to Rs 1.50 million or both for demeaning any person on the social media.
The General Code was prepared under leadership of former chief justices Kalyan Shrestha and Khila Rah Regmi and with participation of lawmakers with legal expertise like Subash Chandra Nembang, Radheshyam Adhikari, Krishna Bhakta Pokharel, Ram Narayan Bidari and Rewati Ram Bhandari.
The IT bill registered in the parliament by the current government treats physical attack on the president and demeaning social media posts almost equally.
Many lawmakers in the House of Representatives (HoR) registered amendment proposals against the bill but the Development Committee of the parliament rejected those proposals. There will be many such incongruities if the bill is passed as it is.
The Criminal Code only considers the act of disturbing religious or communal harmony by writing, speaking or use of shapes or signs as an offense and has a provision of a jail term of up to one year and fine of up to Rs 10,000 for such offense. But the bill has included even use of abusive language against an individual in the social media as an offense and has the provision of a jail term of up to five years and fine of up to Rs 1.50 million for such offense.
The already stretched judicial system will be flooded with cases if the court is moved even for use of abusive language against an individual in the social media.
The Criminal Code has a provision of a jail term of one year and fine of Rs 10,000 for physical assault on someone or impairing the organs including breaking limbs dousing the eyes and so on but the IT bill prescribes harsher punishment for defamatory social media posts.
The punishment for abusive comments against individuals in the social media is also harsher than the jail term of up to one year and fine of up to Rs 10,000 prescribed by the Criminal Code for publishing or broadcasting pornographic materials.
The General Code prescribes jail term of up to two years or a fine of up to Rs 20,000 or both for use of abusive language against any person. If the bill is passed as it is there will be separate punitive provisions for use of abusive language in person and in social media.
The government has yet to answer about the discrepancies and the need to bring such a harsh bill less than a year after the new General Code came into force.
