We live in a democratic country where public opinions are given importance. In a democracy, opinions matter, and Nepal’s constitution guarantees the freedom of expression as a fundamental right. However, this particular right should not be taken to the extreme that gives people the space to instantly judge or accuse someone of crimes without valid evidence.
Democracy does not grant anyone the right to declare someone guilty; it only gives a genuine space to raise a voice, ask questions and demand accountability. And when it does, the very essence of democracy and justice dies.
A recent social media post made by a girl accusing a Nepali actor of rape has sparked debates, condemnation and outrage across social media platforms. Within minutes, people formed opinions, they even declared a verdict and had already pronounced someone guilty and all this, without investigation, without evidence and without due process.
This trend that the Nepalese are so proud of is not only concerning, it is dangerous. This is a serious scenario where emotion and prejudices overtake legal reasoning and evidence. Before even any police complaint was confirmed publicly, before any proper investigation began, thousands had already declared: He is guilty. She is lying. Boycott him. Cancel her.
This trend is commonly known as trial by social media or media trial. This is where the opinions of the public begin to influence the perceptions of guilt before any legal institution could even act. If this continues, then let judges resign, let lawyers step aside. Let the police shut down investigations and let Facebook and Instagram together decide justice.
As a criminal law student, I see this as an absurdity being normalised. One of the most fundamental principles of criminal justice is: ‘an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty’. This principle exists to protect individuals from unlawful convictions, false allegations, and mob justice. It is embedded in almost all democratic legal systems worldwide, including Nepal. When social media users immediately declare someone guilty, they deliberately undermine due process, influence potential witnesses, pressure the investigators and damage reputations permanently.
What if the accused is later found innocent? Social media rarely apologises. And what about the damages? When someone is accused publicly without confirmation or evidence, their reputation gets damaged instantly, public harassment may follow, and their privacy is hindered. The reputational harm is
often irreversible, even if proved innocent later. The damage remains forever. However, it is crucially important to support raising voices and encouraging people and victims to speak up and fight for justice.
There is a huge difference between: listening to allegations, encouraging reporting, supporting due investigations, declaring guilt, and spreading unverified claims.
A healthy society should always encourage the victims to speak up, but justice must still be served, determined through proper and fair investigation. Even the Me Too movement, that went popular, can be taken as a double-edged sword. On one side, it played an important role in empowering the victims of sexual harassment and assaults, while on the other side, it also highlighted the risk of allegations being treated as conclusions and social punishments without legal process.
We cannot deny the role of institutions. We already have police investigators, prosecutors, courts, judges, and forensic experts because justice demands examinations and investigations and not emotions. The social media users are not the ones appointed to declare who did what; it is the sole responsibility of the law enforcement and the judiciary.
When social media starts becoming the judge, false accusations destroy lives, real victims may be doubted in future cases, due processes are undermined and public trust in the institutions declines. And this is absolutely not democracy; this is chaos. Nepali society stands at an important crossroads. Either we entertain social media as a platform for awareness, or social media becomes a courtroom.
A fair trial requires: Evidence, Investigation, neutral judgement, opportunity for defence. These rights are sufficiently protected under the ICCPR and the Constitution of Nepal. Social media judgment interferes with this by influencing public opinion and potentially affecting investigations. Publishing false or unverified allegations online may lead to even legal consequences. This means these actions are not just irresponsible, it can also be illegal.
Democracy protects freedom of expression, but we must never forget that it also protects fair trial, presumption of innocence, reputation and privacy. Freedom of opinion is a democratic right, and declaring someone guilty without proof is an utter violation of justice.
