By Our Reporter
The government has imposed a ban on TikTok, a popular social site.
The government chose the Tihar festival to restrict the use of TikTok. A Cabinet meeting held on November 13 when people were busy marking Tihar festival took the decision to ban the social media app, citing its negative effects on social harmony.
Interestingly, the Cabinet meeting convened on a public holiday, probably to impose the ban and avert the street protests.
Obviously, the ban, no matter what reasons the government gave, was imposed to suppress the growing criticism of the government and corrupt leaders of the major parties.
Before deciding to impose the ban, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal had held a meeting with NC president Sher Bahadur Deuba and UML chair KP Oli and both the leaders reportedly suggested a ban on the popular app.
While Deuba was fed up with the criticism of his spouse Arzu linking her with the case of fake Bhutanese refugee case, Oli was afraid of further leakages of his and other leaders’ wrong-doings through Durga Prasai using the app. Just days before the ban, Prasain made public a video showing how he managed a girl for UML leader Mahes Basnet. This incident was what intensified the enmity between UML and Prasain.
After the ban, 14 writs were filed against the decision in the Supreme Court.
Over the days, the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology has been issuing one statement after another defending the ban.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has issued a show cause notice against the government regarding the ban on TikTok.
A single bench of Justice Binod Sharma on Tuesday directed the government to submit a written response within 15 days clarifying the reasons behind the ban. The court did not issue an interim order in the case as demanded by the petitioners.
As shown on the website of the Supreme Court, 10 writs were registered in the apex court on November 17. Four more writs were registered on November 20 against the ban.
The petitioners have demanded the annulment of the government decision citing the move unconstitutional in a democracy that ensures freedom of speech and expression.
Login to add a comment