Media Monitoring March 2026

by | Apr 8, 2026 | Access, Amplify, Consent, Economy, Expression, Governance, Information, Movement Building, Privacy & Data, Usage, Violence

Researcher: Smriti Ranabhat

Editor: Nuva Rai

Technology Facilitated Gender Based Violence Against Women in Politics  

The constitution of Nepal guarantees freedom of expression for all citizens, but the reality in its execution is different. When it comes to expressing opinions and dissent online, women are disproportionately targeted. During the election, Renuka Baral faced intense online trolling and public harassment for her comment about the election results. A huge crowd, both online and offline, repeatedly mocked her, recorded videos without her consent, and caused significant distress to her and her family. Similarly, ANSFU leader Priti Dahal reported that she received death threats through fake online accounts for her political views, and she pursued legal action by filing a complaint with the Cyber Bureau. Even public figures like Jyoti Magar have faced coordinated backlash, hate speech, and threats linked to perceived political affiliations.

After the formation of a new government and the arrest of former Prime Minister and CPN (UML) chairperson KP Sharma Oli, party members organised a protest. There, Amisha Parajuli became a target of severe online abuse, widespread trolling and rape threats after her expression in support of former Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. These incidents show a serious gap between constitutional protections and the reality of unsafe digital participation for women. When women express opinions, the attacks often target their bodies and character rather than the substance of their views.  The rise of such abuse creates a chilling effect, forcing women to withdraw, self-censor, or endure harm simply for exercising their right to expression. This pattern weakens women’s agency, dignity, and security and affects democratic inclusivity by systematically excluding women’s voices. This nature of the deeply gendered dimension of online violence requires urgent legal and social reform.

Online–Offline Continuum of Gender-Based Violence in Nepal

This month, we observed multiple cases of gender-based digital abuse, including the exploitation of non-consensual intimate images and videos of women, particularly minors. In an incident of 4-year-long abuse, an adult, Tekendra Sahi, was charged with the prolonged sexual abuse and blackmail of a minor. In this instance, the perpetrator committed a sexual assault that was documented, stored, and then used to repeat offences. The perpetrator used those as tools of control, silence, and fear, trapping the survivor. In another case, intimate images of a minor were shared through platforms like Telegram with the intent to shame and defame. In another instance, a man manipulated a woman’s identity by associating her with explicit content that wasn’t hers and rewriting her digital existence without permission. Furthermore, a husband assaulted and raped his wife, recorded the act, and shared it with her relatives just because she refused to give him access to her phone. This is not only sexual violence but the deliberate use of technology to enforce control, humiliation, and submission.

In these cases, a clear and deeply troubling pattern is seen where social media and messaging platforms are being used to perpetrate sexual assault, defamation, and cyber harassment, disproportionately targeting women and minors. Here, technology is actively enabling the violation of bodily autonomy, dignity, and privacy, while amplifying and prolonging harm through coercion, exposure, and manipulation. The consequences of weaponising women’s bodies through digital tools extend to lasting psychological trauma and social exclusion. To address this, we need a stronger, survivor-centred legal frameworks that fully recognize technology-facilitated gender-based violence, and make response systems that do not retraumatize survivors. Without these structural changes, digital spaces will continue to mirror and intensify the inequalities women already face offline. 

Government’s  100-Point Reform and the Missing Digital Rights Lens 

The newly formed government has introduced a 100-point reform agenda to strengthen e-governance. It emphasises paperless systems, faster service delivery, and integrated digital platforms. These efforts to digitize essential services such as citizenship, passports, and national ID signal a somewhat progressive move toward efficiency and transparency. However, the implementation remains uncertain. Moreover, rapid digitalization of services without proper research or consultation with the people risks creating a greater digital divide. For those without high-speed internet or the latest tech, these digital walls make essential services harder to reach which results in further marginalization. At the same time, cybersecurity, data protection, and platform regulation have not received parallel attention. Expanding digital systems without strong safeguards exposes citizens to privacy breaches and the potential misuse of personal data.

In an attempt to track government actions, “Pratipakshya.com” has emerged as a monitoring platform. It aims to follow the government’s 100-point reform agenda and reflects a growing interest in public accountability. However, there is no clarity on indicators and accountability for tracking the success of the respective reform agenda. Also, the lack of transparency regarding its creators, methodology, and use of AI raises legitimate concerns about its reliability and the risk of shaping public perception. This brings forward a few important questions: Who is behind the platform? Can it truly represent a “Pratipakshya”? As the state moves toward e-governance,  it is essential to ensure that transparency, accountability, freedom of speech, and privacy are embedded at the core of its digital transformation.

Misinformation and the Use of AI During Election

Nepal held its election on March 5, 2026. In the period before the election, our media monitoring recorded a notable rise in misinformation, disinformation, the unethical use of AI, and the shaping of public narratives through algorithms. During the election month, we observed a similar pattern of increasing digital manipulation, which ranges from AI-generated deepfakes to misleading videos and fabricated election results.

We witnessed several incidents of misinformation and disinformation, including an AI-generated video falsely showing Narendra Modi endorsing the then-candidate and current Prime Minister Balen Shah. This appears to exploit sensitive issues of nationality. Similarly, edited clips of Sobita Gautam were circulated to make it seem as though she was humiliating indigenous communities. It attempted to shape narratives around identity.

 After the election results, a misleading narrative about KP Sharma Oli crying over his loss was also spread. Likewise, there were videos claiming early victories for figures like Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Balen Shah, Rajiv Khatri, and so on before the official results. Though they were entirely fabricated, these posts created widespread confusion and reflect how digital platforms are being abused to manipulate voter perception.

Authorities have taken action against some individuals through arrests and AI-based monitoring systems. However, in the absence of clear safeguards around misinformation, disinformation, and the use of AI, such government actions risk being perceived as unfair or selectively applied, particularly against dissenting voices. This raises concerns about potential misuse of regulatory power and the need for a more transparent and rights-based approach.

Election code of conduct and media Credibility

The election period in Nepal has shown a tension between protecting the integrity of the vote and respecting fundamental rights. On one hand, the Prime Minister Sushila Karki’s call for responsible voting and caution against misinformation shows the seriousness of the state in the issue. But at the same time, we saw violations of the election code of conduct by political parties and candidates. They continued paid advertisements during the silence period, which clearly points to selective compliance and gaps in enforcement.

The Election Commission took action against Setopati Media Pvt Ltd for publishing an election analysis and projection. This raises an important question: are we strictly following the election code, or stepping into overreach that risks suppressing legitimate journalism? In response, editor-in-chief Amit Dhakal approached the Supreme Court, and the court recognized the public’s right to access election-related information. It is essential to regulate the digital platform, but inconsistent enforcement and restrictive actions can ultimately weaken public confidence in elections.

References: