Criminal Defamation Laws in Bhutan

Criminal defamation laws in Bhutan refer to provisions in the Bhutanese Penal Code that make defamation and libel criminal offences punishable by fines and imprisonment. These laws have drawn criticism from international press freedom organisations, United Nations bodies, and civil society groups, who argue that they create a chilling effect on journalism, social media expression, and public discourse in a country that transitioned to democratic governance only in 2008.^[1]

Legal Framework

Defamation is criminalised under Section 317 of the Penal Code of Bhutan, which defines the offence as intentionally causing damage to a person’s reputation by communicating false or distorted information. Libel, the written form of defamation, is addressed under Section 320. Both offences carry penalties including fines and a maximum prison term of three years.

In addition to the Penal Code provisions, the National Security Act of 1992 contains broad provisions prohibiting any attempt to create “misunderstanding or hostility between the government and the people.” Press freedom advocates have argued that this provision can be applied to penalise legitimate journalism and political criticism. Bhutan’s 2008 Constitution, under Article 7, guarantees the right to freedom of speech, expression, and opinion, but this right is qualified by provisions permitting restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, and decency.^[2]

The Namgay Zam Case (2016)

The most prominent case involving criminal defamation in Bhutan was the prosecution of Namgay Zam, a former news anchor at the Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS) and one of the country’s best-known journalists. In August 2016, Zam was charged with libel for sharing a Facebook post written by Dr. Shacha Wangmo concerning a property dispute between Wangmo’s family and businessman Sonam Phuntsho. The post included allegations of forgery and nepotism within the judiciary—a particularly sensitive matter, as the plaintiff, Sonam Phuntsho, was the father-in-law of the then Chief Justice of Bhutan.^[3]

The case attracted significant international attention and was widely described as the first major test of press freedom in Bhutan following its democratic transition. Zam faced potential imprisonment or a fine of Nu 2.59 million—equivalent to approximately ten years’ salary. The International Press Institute (IPI), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and other organisations expressed concern about the case’s implications for free expression. The plaintiff ultimately chose to withdraw the case just before the court was to deliver its verdict, in early 2017. Following the case, Zam left Bhutan, a departure that commentators at The Diplomat described as an example of “brain drain in action.”^[4]

The Nirmala Pokhrel Case (2018)

In August 2018, journalist Nirmala Pokhrel was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for libel under Section 320 of the Penal Code. Her offence was a Facebook post related to a child abuse case. The conviction drew criticism from CIVICUS, which described it as further evidence of the chilling effect of criminal defamation on journalism in Bhutan, particularly on reporting about sensitive social issues such as child abuse and sexual violence.^[5]

International Criticism and Calls for Reform

Multiple international bodies have called on Bhutan to decriminalise defamation. During Bhutan’s Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council in May 2019, UNESCO recommended that Bhutan repeal criminal defamation laws and relocate defamation to the civil code, in line with international standards on freedom of expression. The United States recommended that Bhutan “prevent the misuse of defamation laws to unduly constrain freedom of expression both online and offline.” The Bhutanese delegation reportedly expressed support for the US recommendation.

The CIVICUS Monitor rates civic space in Bhutan as “obstructed,” citing concerns about media independence, restricted access to government-held information, and the chilling effect of defamation provisions on journalists and civil society actors. Self-censorship is described as widespread, with many journalists avoiding sensitive subjects including political criticism, corruption, the judiciary, and the southern districts.

Press Freedom Rankings

Bhutan’s press freedom ranking has fluctuated significantly. The country ranked 33rd globally in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index in 2022 but dropped to 90th in 2023, a decline of 57 places. More recent RSF reports have placed Bhutan even lower, at 147th, reflecting what the organisation describes as ongoing fragility in press freedom despite constitutional protections. RSF has noted that the main newspaper, Kuensel, remains state-owned, and that foreign journalists are not permitted to conduct independent reporting in Bhutan’s southern districts.^[6]

Government Perspective

The Royal Government of Bhutan has maintained that defamation laws are necessary to protect individuals’ reputations from false and malicious statements, particularly in the context of social media, where unverified claims can spread rapidly. Officials have pointed to the constitutional guarantee of free expression and argued that the legal framework provides adequate safeguards against misuse. The government has also noted that Bhutan’s judiciary operates independently and that defendants in defamation cases are entitled to full legal representation and appeal.

The debate over criminal defamation in Bhutan reflects broader tensions in a young democracy navigating the balance between protecting individual reputation, maintaining social harmony—a value emphasised within the GNH framework—and safeguarding the free press that is widely considered essential to democratic accountability.