There is no specification, however, of what situations fall in the category of public interest. Similarly, section 38 allows the controller, appointed by the government, to order the deposit of private keys utilized to make digital signatures if the sovereignty of the country, its cordial relationships with other nations, or the law and order situation may be affected. Again, this ambiguous provision could lead to undue restrictions on Internet communications.
Another relevant provision in the act is that related to the publication of illegal materials. The law establishes that publishing material that contravenes any law, affects morality or hampers smooth relationships among the peoples of Nepal, can lead to the imposition of fines, imprisonment or both. Furthermore, the duration of prison sentences for this offence can add up to five years. Such provision is problematic due to the vagueness of the definition of terms such as “public morality or decent behavior.” The International Media Mission reports government endeavors to control media freedom in this direction, by seeking to restrict online contents and to make service providers liable for illegal content. The liability of network service providers, however, is limited by the law to those cases when they offer access to information issued by a third party with knowledge that such information violates the rules of this law.
Other infractions that carry similar penalties, with limitation of jail sentences to two years, are abridgment of confidentiality, issuance of false statements, exhibition of false licenses and computer fraud. Failure to submit mandatory documents can lead to monetary penalties. It is interesting to note that the court competent to adjudicate disputes regarding these offences is an ad hoc three-member tribunal created by this law. One of the members must have experience with information technology, another shall be eligible to be a district judge, and the third one has to be specialized in electronic commerce. The “law member,” as the statute puts it, will chair the tribunal. A parallel appellate tribunal, where the members are required five years of experience rather than three, will hear the appeals to the decisions of the first instance body.