Defamation Law in Nepal (2026): Libel, Slander & Cyber Defamation

Defamation in Nepal is no longer mainly a print-media question. The Muluki Criminal Code 2074 (2017) codifies slander and libel at Sections 305 and 306, but the bigger 2026 issue is cyber defamation — the social-media post, the WhatsApp forward, the tweet, the YouTube comment that travels faster than any newspaper ever did. The Electronic Transactions Act 2063 (2008) layers an additional one-year imprisonment and NPR 10,000 fine on top of the Criminal Code penalties when defamation is committed through electronic or mass-communication means. The three-month limitation under Section 307 catches most victims unaware: by the time they decide to act, the criminal route has already closed. See our tort-law practice area for related matters.

This guide is the 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's view of defamation law in Nepal: the structure of slander and libel offences under the Muluki Criminal Code, the cyber defamation overlay under ETA 2063, the three-month limitation and the date-of-knowledge rule, the defences (truth in the public interest, good-faith comment, qualified privilege), the parallel civil tort claim under Sections 672–684 of the Civil Code 2074, and how Alpine Law Associates handles defamation matters from both prosecution and defence sides. Whether you are a victim of online or offline defamation, an accused person facing a complaint, or counsel structuring the file, this is the document you will work from.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered defamation team handling slander, libel and cyber-defamation matters from both prosecution and defence sides for individuals, journalists, and businesses.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is defamation under Nepali law in 2026?

Defamation in Nepali law is the false oral or written communication about another person that harms their dignity, character, or reputation. Sections 305 to 308 of the Muluki Criminal Code 2074 (2017) sit in Chapter 18 — Offences relating to Public Tranquillity and Morality — and codify the offence in two principal forms: slander (oral) and libel (written, printed, published, or visualised). Both forms protect the same underlying interest — reputation — but the law treats libel more seriously because of its permanence and reach.

The 2074 Code replaced the older Country Code (Muluki Ain) provisions on defamation and aligned the offence with both modern free-speech doctrine and the practical realities of internet-era communication. The Electronic Transactions Act 2063 (2008) had already added a cyber-defamation overlay — a one-year-plus-NPR-10,000 enhancement when defamation is committed through electronic means — and the two statutes now operate together as the working framework for 2026 defamation matters. Civil tort liability under Sections 672–684 of the Muluki Civil Code 2074 runs in parallel — a victim can pursue criminal prosecution and civil damages simultaneously.

Section 305 — slander (oral defamation)

Section 305 of the Muluki Criminal Code 2074 prohibits slander. Slander is committed when a person uses degrading words, either spoken or communicated, with the intention of damaging or lowering the reputation of the victim. The elements the prosecution must establish are:

• An act of communication. A spoken word, gesture, or non-permanent expression communicating the defamatory content.
• Defamatory content. The communication must impute something that lowers the victim in the estimation of right-thinking members of society — accusing someone of a crime, professional incompetence, immoral conduct, or other reputation-damaging conduct.
• Identifiable victim. The victim must be identifiable — by name, description, or context — to those who heard or received the communication.
• Publication / communication to a third party. The defamatory statement must reach at least one third party other than the victim. Telling the victim alone is not slander.
• Intent or recklessness. The accused must have intended to damage the victim's reputation, or have spoken with reckless disregard for the truth.

Punishment for slander is imprisonment up to one year and / or a fine up to NPR 10,000. Common slander cases reach district courts in disputes between neighbours, business partners, and family members where the communication is verbal. Witnesses to the spoken statement become the central evidence at trial.

Section 306 — libel (written, published or visualised defamation)

Section 306 prohibits libel — defamation in written, printed, published, or visualised form. The elements mirror slander but the medium is permanent: a printed newspaper article, a published book, a posted leaflet, a broadcast television report, a posted social media update, a YouTube video, a printed photograph with caption. The permanence of the medium makes libel inherently more harmful to reputation, and the punishment reflects this — up to two years' imprisonment and / or a fine up to NPR 20,000.

Practically, libel is the most-litigated form of defamation in 2026 because internet communication is its native habitat. A WhatsApp forward, a Facebook post, a tweet, a comment on a news site, a YouTube comment, an SMS — all are libel because they are stored, retrievable, and can be reproduced. The same content posted via screenshot or shared as an image carries the same libel exposure as the original text. Counsel for victims of online libel preserve the digital evidence (screenshots with URL and timestamp, full export from the platform, web-archive captures) at the earliest stage because deletion by the publisher is common once a complaint is anticipated.

Cyber defamation under the Electronic Transactions Act 2063

The Electronic Transactions Act 2063 (2008) was the first Nepali statute explicitly addressing online conduct, and its Section 47 covers publishing or transmitting illegal materials in electronic form — including defamatory content. When defamation is committed through electronic or mass-communication means, the ETA 2063 enhancement applies on top of the Criminal Code penalty: an additional one year of imprisonment and / or NPR 10,000 fine. The two penalties run together in the cyber-defamation case, producing materially harsher outcomes than offline libel.

Investigation of cyber defamation runs through Nepal Police's Cyber Bureau (cyberbureau.nepalpolice.gov.np), which has the technical capacity for digital forensics — IP tracing, account verification, content preservation, platform liaison. The Bureau is the practical entry point for cyber-defamation FIRs in Kathmandu Valley and increasingly across the country. For comprehensive cover of the broader cyber-law framework see our Electronic Transaction Act 2063 guide.

Section 307 — the strict three-month limitation

Section 307 prescribes a strict three-month limitation: no complaint for defamation lies after the expiry of three months from the date of knowledge of the offence. The clock runs from when the victim knew of the defamatory statement, not from when it was first published — a meaningful flexibility for online cases where the victim may discover an old post months later. But once the clock starts, three months is short.

This three-month window is the single largest reason defamation cases fail in Nepal. By the time a victim has consulted family, decided whether to react, gathered the evidence, and approached counsel, the limitation may have expired. Counsel triages limitation at the very first meeting and often files a holding complaint within the window even where the full evidence is still being assembled. The civil tort route under the Civil Code 2074 has a similar six-month limitation under Section 684 — see our tort law in Nepal guide.

Defences under Section 308 — when defamation is not punishable

Section 308 of the Code lists conduct that is not defamation. The defences are exhaustive in their categories and decisive in practice — most contested defamation trials turn on whether one of these defences is established.

1. Truth in the public interest. Publishing or broadcasting anything true concerning any person, along with evidence and basis, for the public good is not libel. Three elements must be established: the statement must be true, the truth must be supported by evidence, and the publication must be for the public good — not merely to harm the victim. Truth alone is not enough; truth without public-interest framing can still be actionable in some cases.
2. Good-faith comment on public servants. Publishing in good faith and decently anything respecting the conduct of any public servant in the discharge of public functions is not libel. The defence protects critique of officials acting in their public capacity but does not extend to private conduct of public officials.
3. Good-faith opinion on public office or position. Expressing in good faith any opinion respecting the conduct of public office or position of any person is permitted — protecting commentary, editorial opinion, and review of public conduct.
4. Qualified privilege in proceedings. Statements made in court or legislative proceedings, or in fair report of those proceedings, are protected from defamation liability even if otherwise damaging to reputation.
5. Communication under legal duty. Statements made by a person obliged by law to make them — police officer reporting an offence, doctor reporting a notifiable disease, auditor reporting irregular accounts — are not defamation.

How a defamation case is filed in Nepal

1. Preserve the evidence. For libel: screenshots with URL and timestamp, full export from the platform, web-archive captures, printed copies, witness statements of who saw it. For slander: contact details of every witness who heard the statement, written witness statements, any audio or video recording.
2. Send a pre-complaint legal notice. A formal demand letter to the publisher / speaker requiring retraction, apology, removal, and compensation — often produces resolution without formal complaint and creates evidence of attempted settlement.
3. File the FIR. Where the matter does not settle, file at the local Nepal Police station within the three-month window. For cyber defamation, file at the Cyber Bureau in Kathmandu (or its provincial extension) for technically capable investigation.
4. Police investigation. Witness statements are recorded, the publisher / speaker is summoned for statement, digital forensics are conducted in cyber cases. Investigation typically takes 4–12 weeks.
5. Charge sheet to prosecutor. The Office of the Attorney General reviews the file and decides whether to charge. The charge sheet specifies the section — Sec 305 for slander, Sec 306 for libel, with ETA 2063 added for cyber defamation.
6. Trial at District Court. Examination-in-chief of the victim and witnesses, cross-examination, defence evidence, expert evidence in cyber cases, and final arguments. The case proceeds under the Criminal Procedure Code 2074.
7. Verdict and sentence. On conviction, the court imposes prison and / or fine within the section's band, and orders compensation to the victim based on gravity and reputational harm.
8. Civil tort claim. Counsel typically files a parallel civil tort claim under Civil Code Sections 672-684 for additional damages — pain and suffering, mental distress, consequential commercial loss. The civil claim has a six-month limitation.

Compensation in defamation cases

Conviction under Section 305 or 306 triggers the criminal sentence, but the financial recovery to the victim comes through the compensation order issued alongside. The court determines compensation considering the gravity of the offence and the impact upon the reputation of the individual — factors include the prominence of the victim, the reach of the publication, the duration over which the defamation continued, the willingness or refusal to retract, and the consequent financial or social harm. Where the libel concerned a deceased person, compensation is ordered to be paid to the near successor whose feelings were hurt.

The civil tort claim under Civil Code Sections 672-684 produces an additional damages recovery on the same facts. Reputational harm, mental distress, and consequential financial losses (lost employment, lost contracts, lost commercial relationships) are recoverable through the tort claim with documentary evidence. For high-profile cases — politicians, celebrities, business executives, journalists — the tort claim typically produces a materially larger recovery than the criminal compensation order alone.

Common defamation scenarios in 2026 practice

• Social-media post making accusations. A Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram post accusing someone of fraud, infidelity, or professional misconduct. ETA 2063 + Section 306 apply; the Cyber Bureau handles investigation.
• WhatsApp group forwards. A WhatsApp message forwarded to a group, accusing someone of something untrue. Each forwarder potentially commits a fresh act of libel; the original creator and the forwarders can all be charged.
• YouTube and online video defamation. A video on YouTube or another platform making defamatory claims. Cyber Bureau preserves the video and platform metadata for evidence.
• Print and broadcast media defamation. A newspaper article, TV report, or radio broadcast — Section 306 libel with editor and publisher liability. The Press Council Nepal handles parallel ethical complaints; criminal prosecution is independent.
• Workplace defamation. An employer makes defamatory statements about a former employee in a reference, or a colleague spreads false stories about a co-worker. Section 305 slander typically applies; employment-law angle runs alongside.
• Domestic and family defamation. Family members making defamatory statements about each other — typically Section 305 slander, often resolved through family mediation rather than full prosecution.

Defences in practice — when accused persons succeed

• Demonstrating truth. The accused proves the statement was true with documentary evidence. This is a complete defence under Section 308.
• Public-interest framing. Even where truth is established, the accused must show the publication was for public good, not for private vendetta. Investigative journalism on corruption typically clears this hurdle.
• Good faith on public servant. Critique of a politician's policy, a bureaucrat's administrative decision, or a judge's ruling — when made in good faith and decently, is protected.
• Lack of identification. Where the publication does not identify the victim with sufficient specificity, the offence is not made out. General complaints about "some people" or "the establishment" without identifying the victim are generally not actionable.
• No publication element. Where the statement was made only to the victim — directly, in private, with no third party — slander is not made out because there is no publication.
• Limitation. A complaint filed beyond three months from the date of knowledge is time-barred under Section 307.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with defamation matters?

Alpine Law Associates handles defamation work from both prosecution and defence sides. For victims of slander, libel, or cyber defamation, our process starts with limitation triage at intake (the three-month window is unforgiving), evidence preservation (digital forensics for online cases, witness statements for offline cases), pre-complaint legal notice for retraction, FIR drafting at the local police or Cyber Bureau, prosecution support through District Court trial, and a parallel civil tort claim under Civil Code Sections 672-684 for additional damages. We coordinate with technical forensics specialists for cyber-defamation cases and with media-law experts for journalist-related matters.

For accused persons — journalists, social media users, business executives, ordinary citizens — we structure defence around the Section 308 defences: truth and public good, good-faith comment on public servants, qualified privilege, lack of identification, and absence of publication. For corporate clients facing reputational attacks online, we coordinate defamation enforcement with reputation-management strategy and with platform takedown requests where applicable. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we run defamation matters alongside related civil tort, employment, and privacy work without you switching counsel.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026