Dr. Pratyush Nath Upreti

In a previous contribution to The Post, titled ‘Cybercrime without cyber-rules’ (May 25), I had raised the issue of an inadequate cyber law regime in Nepal. Then after, we have witnessed a series of arrests under cyber laws, from the saga of Home Minister Bamdev Gautam to the controversial arrest of one Abdul Rahman. Most arrests have been under Section 47 of the Electronic Transaction Act for commenting and posting on social sites. Hence, after Rahman’s arrest, voices were raised by civil society concerning freedom of speech on the Internet. Speech and the internet Ever since the arrival of the internet in Nepal over a decade ago, demand and access has been increasing. In recent years, internet has become part of daily life for many. But the internet has also troubled many people, with increasing incidents of cyber crimes. Data from Nepal Police’s Crime Investigation Department, shows that in 2011-12, there were a total of nine cyber crime offences; in 2012-13, offence increased

"Cases of cyber crimes have been increasing rapidly in Nepal. Due to a lack of awareness about the nature of the offence and existing legal measures, victims are reluctant to seek redress. But the decision on the Abdul Rahman case will surely invite a flood of cases against cyber offences. The judgment stands on merit and the court’s observations are welcome and much appreciated. However, it is true that the government should be concerned about technological advancement and its impacts on society. Still, a blanket restriction of freedom of speech on the internet is not permissible at all." Cyber democracy | Opinion | Oped

"Cases of cyber crimes have been increasing rapidly in Nepal. Due to a lack of awareness about the nature of the offence and existing legal measures, victims are reluctant to seek redress. But the decision on the Abdul Rahman case will surely invite a flood of cases against cyber offences. The judgment stands on merit and the court’s observations are welcome and much appreciated. However, it is true that the government should be concerned about technological advancement and its impacts on society. Still, a blanket restriction of freedom of speech on the internet is not permissible at all." Cyber democracy | Opinion | Oped

"No, Narendra Bhai, I am not thanking you for the billion dollar soft credit your have extended to Nepal without it having even been asked for. Given that Loktantra here quickly morphed into an all-party Loot-tantra and has now naturally progressed into a Don-tantra, easy money in the hands of a kleptocracy will not do any good to the people of Nepal. Indeed, given the likelihood of its misuse by the current dispensationbrought into existence by your own spook-led Raj via the 12-pont Delhi deal in November 2005, future generations of Nepalis might judge this to be intravenous feeding of Loot-tantra and may have to invoke the Doctrine of Odious Debts, something enshrined into international law by the US against Spain after taking over Cuba at the end of the 19 th  Century." Thank you, Narendra Bhai! But No Thanks!! | NewSpotLight Nepal News Magazine By Dipak Gyawali

If we could take pointers from India’s legal system, it would be contextual and more practical. Even after going through such an enormous change in appointment history, India has still not introduced Parliamentary hearings and there is no representation of the parliament in the new mechanism to appoint the judges in India. The structure of the appointment authority is not of primary importance. What is more important is how this body goes through a better process of appointments. The apex body ought to create committees for the formation of a roster. Another committee could investigate and finalise a suitable name for the shortlist for the appointment of judges. The apex body can only choose names from this list that has been finalised by the sub-committees. Only then will there be transparency and better selection of judges. Judge and appoint | Opinion | Oped

In 1946, Nehru told the U.N. that India sought its place in the “diplomatic sun.” India was not a major military nor economic power. But it was also not merely a moral voice, a cry in the wilderness. It would use its prestige to build a large coalition on behalf of “world peace and the welfare of mankind.” A moral foundation for foreign policy - The Hindu

Is Modi a game changer?  Game changer? | Opinion | Oped