Media Freedom in Bhutan

Media freedom in Bhutan has undergone a dramatic deterioration since the country's democratic transition in 2008. While the Constitution of Bhutan, adopted that year, formally guarantees press freedom, the practical reality has diverged sharply from this constitutional promise. Bhutan's ranking in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index fell from 33rd in 2022 to 152nd in 2025, a collapse of 119 positions in three years that represents one of the steepest declines recorded globally during that period. The Bhutan Media Foundation has documented that at least 84 percent of journalists in the country practice self-censorship, making it one of the defining features of Bhutan's media landscape.

Historical Background

Bhutan's modern media landscape is relatively young. Kuensel, the country's oldest newspaper, was founded as a government bulletin in 1965 and became a weekly publication in 1986. Television and the internet were introduced in Bhutan only in 1999, making it one of the last countries in the world to receive these technologies. The opening of the media space accelerated in the early 2000s when private newspapers were permitted, and the country's first democratic constitution in 2008 enshrined freedom of the press in Article 7, Section 5.

Despite this legal framework, the actual operating environment for journalists has remained constrained. The 2006 Bhutan Information, Communications and Media Act (BICMA Act) and its 2018 successor created a regulatory body, the Bhutan InfoComm and Media Authority, whose five members are all appointed by the government. This structure has raised concerns about the independence of media regulation. Bhutan has never enacted a Right to Information law, and journalists consistently report difficulties accessing government-held information.^[1]

Press Freedom Rankings

Bhutan's RSF ranking trajectory tells a striking story. In 2022, the country ranked 33rd globally, a position that compared favorably with many established democracies. By 2023, it had dropped to 90th, and by 2024 it fell further to 147th. In the 2025 index, Bhutan ranked 152nd out of 180 countries with an overall score of 32.62 out of 100, placing it in RSF's "very serious" category. Among the five RSF indicators, Bhutan scored worst on the social indicator (174th, score 19.16), reflecting the depth of self-censorship. The economic indicator ranked 170th (22.34), the legislative indicator 169th (20.95), and the political indicator 161st (20.63). The only comparatively strong area was security (83rd, score 80.00), reflecting the absence of physical violence against journalists.^[2]

RSF has attributed this decline to "institutional barriers and unregulated digital competition," the heavy financial dependence of private media on government advertising, and the chilling effect of defamation laws on reporting. Within South Asia, Bhutan's 2025 ranking placed it between Bangladesh (149th) and Pakistan (158th).

Media Ownership and Economic Dependence

The media landscape in Bhutan is characterized by a high degree of government ownership and financial dependence on state advertising. Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS), the country's only broadcast media entity, is wholly owned by the Royal Government of Bhutan, with the Ministry of Finance as sole shareholder. Kuensel, the newspaper of record, operates with 51 percent government ownership and 49 percent private shareholding.^[3]

According to Freedom House and the Department of Information and Media, private newspapers in Bhutan derive approximately 80 to 90 percent of their revenue from government advertising. This financial structure creates a structural incentive for media outlets to avoid reporting that might displease government agencies, which control their primary revenue stream. A Department of Information and Media (DoIM) report warned that reducing government advertising expenditure and giving more priority to state media "may result in Bhutan with no private media."^[4]

No fully independent media outlet exists in Bhutan. All major publications and broadcast entities have either direct government ownership or overwhelming financial dependence on government advertising. Private publications face low readership in a small market (approximately 780,000 people) and insufficient private-sector advertising to sustain independent operations.

Self-Censorship

The Bhutan Media Foundation's research found that 84 percent of journalists practice self-censorship, making it the dominant constraint on press freedom. The study found that male journalists were one and a half times more likely to self-censor compared to female counterparts, and that mid-level journalists tended to self-censor less frequently than entry-level or senior journalists. The Foundation attributed this behavior primarily to "small society syndrome" and the fear of social backlash in a country where professional networks and personal relationships are closely intertwined.^[5]

Self-censorship extends beyond political reporting. Journalists avoid covering sensitive subjects including the monarchy, religious institutions, military affairs, ethnic minority issues, and the business activities of politically connected individuals. Many media organizations in Bhutan lack formal safety policies for their journalists, leaving reporters without institutional protection when facing pressure from powerful figures.

Key Cases

Namgay Zam

Namgay Zam, formerly one of Bhutan's most recognized television journalists as a news anchor with BBS, became the center of a landmark press freedom case in 2016. She was accused of defamation by businessman Sonam Phuntsho, the father-in-law of the Chief Justice, after sharing a petition against the businessman on Facebook. The case was seen by international press freedom organizations as a test of Bhutan's post-democratic commitment to free expression. Zam faced potential imprisonment or a fine of 2.59 million ngultrum (approximately ten years' salary). The case was eventually withdrawn by the plaintiff. Zam left Bhutan for Nepal but later returned. She subsequently became executive director of the Journalists' Association of Bhutan from 2019 to 2023.^[6]

Nirmala Pokhrel

In August 2018, journalist Nirmala Pokhrel was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for criminal defamation under Section 320 of the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from a 2017 Facebook post about a woman who had allegedly mistreated her six-year-old stepdaughter. The court also ordered Pokhrel to post a public apology on Facebook for one month. In her defense, Pokhrel argued the charges "undermined the fundamental right of free speech and the fundamental duty of every Bhutanese citizen to take necessary steps to prevent abuse of children." The case was the second time a Bhutanese journalist had been prosecuted for defamation over a Facebook post.^[7]

Social Media and Digital Space

Social media, particularly Facebook, has emerged as an alternative public discourse platform in Bhutan. With limited independent media, citizens increasingly use social media to discuss issues that traditional outlets avoid. However, the same defamation laws that constrain professional journalists apply to social media users, and both the Namgay Zam and Nirmala Pokhrel cases originated from Facebook posts. The government retains the ability to block websites deemed contrary to national interests. CIVICUS rates Bhutan's civic space as "obstructed," noting the chilling effect of defamation laws on both journalists and ordinary citizens.^[8]

International Assessments

Freedom House upgraded Bhutan from "Partly Free" to "Free" in its 2025 Freedom in the World report, with a score of 68 out of 100. However, even within this relatively favorable assessment, Freedom House noted that media outlets "depend heavily on government advertising, encouraging self-censorship" and that "powerful individuals can use defamation laws to retaliate against critics." This divergence between Freedom House and RSF assessments reflects different methodologies: Freedom House evaluates broader political and civil rights, while RSF focuses specifically on press freedom conditions.^[9]

Political Prisoners and Press Coverage

In 2025, UN human rights experts called on the Bhutanese government to release political prisoners held for decades, many of them ethnic Nepali-speakers convicted on what the UN described as "vague" terrorism charges. This development received minimal coverage in Bhutanese domestic media, illustrating the practical constraints on reporting about sensitive political subjects. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both called on the European Union to press Bhutan on the issue during partnership negotiations.^[10]