Constitution Study #6: How Free Are We?

Freedom—a term we instinctively link with democracy. We think of freedom in Nepal as the right to speak, to question, to move, to protest, and to live with dignity within its territory. Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal boldly declares this right for every citizen. And yet, in the lived experience of many Nepalis, freedom feels conditional, fragile, and at times, dangerous.

So, what does the Constitution really say about freedom? Where does it draw the line? And how can the very right meant to empower citizens be used to suppress dissent?

What Does Article 17 Say?

Article 17 of the Constitution enshrines the Right to Freedom under six broad categories:

  1. Freedom of opinion and expression
  2. Freedom to assemble peacefully
  3. Freedom to form political parties
  4. Freedom to form unions and associations
  5. Freedom to move and reside anywhere in Nepal
  6. Freedom to practice any profession or business

At first glance, this seems an expansive and a robust shield for democracy. But behind this promise lie several restrictions, some of which are reasonable and others, potentially oppressive.

The Catch: “Reasonable Restrictions”

Each of these freedoms comes with legal qualifiers. The Constitution allows laws to curtail freedoms to protect:

  • Sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national independence
  • Public morality and decency
  • Harmonious relations between communities
  • Security, law and order
  • National secrecy and integrity
  • Reputation, judicial authority, and professional standards

On paper, these restrictions aim to prevent chaos. In reality, they can, and have been, used to silence criticism and criminalize dissent. Let’s explore these restrictions in practice.

Nepal’s Constitution establishes constitutional sovereignty, where power flows through constitutional institutions, not directly from the people. Article 2 declares that sovereignty lies with the people, but only as exercised through the Constitution. (See my earlier article: Can Nepal Restore Monarchy?)

Here’s the paradox:

  • Popular sovereignty suggests the people can question, challenge, and even revise the system.
  • But constitutional sovereignty sets limits — including on what people may say or do in the name of reform.

This tension becomes visible when:

  • Protesters are arrested for demanding structural change.
  • Critics are charged with contempt for questioning judicial decisions. In Chapter 6 of the book, Information Liberation, Brian Martin explains how defamation laws can curtail free speech.
  • Political parties are threatened with bans for pushing ideas seen as “anti-sovereign.”

The question is: Who defines sovereignty — and in whose interest?

Freedom and the Fear of Dissent

Over the years, we’ve seen numerous cases, in Nepal as well as around the globe, where government has used vague terms like “morality,” “nationality,” and “sovereignty” to stifle dissent.

In these cases, freedom seems to protect the powerful, not a sword for justice.

Why This Matters

As citizens, we must ask:

  • Who defines “morality” and “national interest”?
  • Are the laws protecting people, or protecting power?
  • Is the Constitution a living reflection of the people’s will, or a mechanism to control it?

Freedom cannot flourish in a society where criticism is feared, and where laws are used as weapons to silence those without power.

Exercising Freedom Responsibly

Freedom is not just a right — it’s a responsibility. We must exercise it with:

  • Respect for others’ rights
  • Honesty and courage
  • Awareness of consequences

But responsibility does not mean silence. True responsibility means using your voice to speak for truth, justice, and the dignity of all — even when it’s uncomfortable.

Final Reflection

The Right to Freedom in Nepal is both a constitutional guarantee and a battleground. We must defend it, not just on paper, but in practice — through protest, art, speech, storytelling, and solidarity.

Definitions of betrayal and treason raise urgent questions. Is it treason to question authority, or is it more treacherous to quietly erode the sovereignty of the people through corruption, abuse of power, and fear?

“To question your nation is not to betray it. To silence those questions is.”

For us to truly thrive, we must embrace the idea that sovereignty belongs to the people, not to political elites, not to closed institutions. It’s time we rise together to make that truth real, with our words, our actions, and our unwavering courage.

Discover more from Stories of Sandeept

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.