Speaking Freely in Bhutan and the Legal Boundaries of Press Freedom

Introduction

In 2016, Namgay Zam, a Bhutanese journalist, was prosecuted for criminal defamation after sharing a Facebook post regarding a property dispute. She was sentenced to three months in prison and required to pay a fine. This case represents a significant test of freedom of expression in Bhutan’s constitutional framework. As digital platforms enable widespread public discourse, the practical application of expression rights requires careful examination. This paper analyzes Bhutan's legal framework protecting freedom of expression and evaluates potential reforms to strengthen media independence and citizens' rights.

Context

Bhutan adopted constitutional democracy in 2008, establishing civil liberties within its legal framework. Citizens gained constitutional rights to participate in public debate, facilitated by expanding digital access. However, statutory restrictions, traditional governance structures, and enforcement patterns create practical limitations on these constitutional guarantees. Legal prosecutions for expression, restrictions on religious speech, and broad security legislation provisions affect how journalists and citizens exercise their rights.

Bhutan’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index declined from 33rd in 2022 to 90th in 2023, indicating challenges in media independence and government information access. Similar patterns appear across constitutional monarchies in the region, where traditional authority structures intersect with democratic governance principles.

Legal Framework

Bhutan's constitutional and statutory provisions create structural tensions in expression rights:

Constitution of Bhutan: Article 7 guarantees freedom of speech, opinion, and expression to all citizens, establishing the constitutional foundation for democratic participation.

However, statutory laws impose certain limitations. The National Security Act, 1992 (Sections 7 and 8) criminalizes speech that creates “hatred and disaffection among the people” or fosters “misunderstanding or hostility between the government and the people.” The broad and ambiguous language of these provisions can encompass criticism of government policies, officials, or institutions, highlighting the gap between constitutional guarantees and practical limitations on freedom of expression.

Penal Code Amendment Act 2021: Article 463A criminalizes compelling individuals to adopt another faith, with imprisonment up to three years. This provision restricts religious expression in favor of social harmony considerations.

Media Act 2006: While establishing press freedom principles, the Act grants regulatory powers to government agencies, including license revocation for content deemed “against national interest.”

These statutory provisions create potential conflicts with constitutional expression guarantees.

Analysis

Bhutan’s legal framework reflects tensions between constitutional expression rights and statutory restrictions designed to maintain social harmony and national security. Broadly worded provisions, such as Sections 7 and 8 of the National Security Act, create uncertainty for journalists and citizens regarding the limits of permissible discourse. The 2016 Namgay Zam case illustrates these challenges, where the potential financial penalty and prison sentence highlighted the chilling effect of criminal defamation laws on media freedom.

International observers, including the International Press Institute (IPI), have raised concerns that such disproportionate penalties, coupled with potential social media regulations, may further discourage reporting on sensitive issues. IPI emphasizes the importance of precise legal definitions and stakeholder consultation to ensure that online speech and journalistic activity are not unduly restricted. These pressures contribute to widespread self-censorship among Bhutanese journalists, undermining the practical exercise of freedom of expression despite constitutional guarantees.

These conditions have fostered widespread self-censorship among journalists, with the 2025 Rapid Assessment of Bhutan’s Media Landscape by the Journalists’ Association of Bhutan (JAB) reporting that 80% avoid sensitive topics due to fear of reprisal or legal consequences. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) similarly notes self-censorship to avoid challenging the social order. Collectively, these legal and societal pressures limit the practical exercise of freedom of expression in Bhutan, highlighting the need for targeted legal and institutional reforms.

Recommendations

Strengthening freedom of expression in Bhutan requires comprehensive legal and institutional reforms:

Legal Reforms:

• Narrow the National Security Act language to require “clear and present danger” standards

• Establish civil remedies for minor defamation cases rather than criminal prosecution

• Create statutory press freedom protections with judicial review mechanisms

Institutional Reforms:

• Establish an independent Press Council with legal aid provisions

• Develop professional training programs for journalists

• Create public access to information protocols with defined government response timelines

Implementation Mechanisms:

• Establish a Parliamentary Committee on Press Freedom

• Develop digital literacy programs educating citizens about expression rights

• Provide judicial training on international free speech standards

Conclusion

Harmonizing statutory law with constitutional guarantees through these specific reforms would enable citizens to engage freely in public debate and hold authorities accountable. Protecting freedom of expression serves as a foundational element for informed, participatory democracy where traditional values and modern rights can coexist effectively.

References

1. International Press Institute. (2016, September 2), IPI concerned by Bhutan defamation case, https://ipi.media/ipi-concerned-by-bhutan-defamation-case/ 

2. Journalists’ Association of Bhutan (JAB). (2025), Bhutan’s media landscape faces challenges but shows resilience, says new survey, https://www.jab.bt/bhutans-media-landscape-faces-challenges-but-shows-resilience-says-new-survey/?utm_source

3. Reporters Without Borders (RSF). (2025), Bhutan, https://rsf.org/en/country/bhutan?utm_source

4. National Security Act, 1992 (Bhutan), Sections 7–8, Royal Government of Bhutan, https://oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/National-Security-Act-of-Bhutan-1992English.pdf 

5. Constitution of Bhutan, 2008, Article 7, https://www.dlgdm.gov.bt/storage/upload-documents/2021/9/20/Constitution-of-bhutan-2008.pdf

6. Penal Code (Amendment) Act of Bhutan 2021, Article 463A, https://www.oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Penal_Code_Amendment_Act_of_Bhutan_2021.pdf

7. National Security Act of Bhutan, Section 7 and 8, https://oag.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/National-Security-Act-of-Bhutan-1992English.pdf

8. Amnesty International. (n.d.). Human rights in Bhutan, September 20, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/bhutan/report-bhutan/?utm_source

This article is authored by Tshering Doelkar, Trainee of Lets Learn Law Legal Research Training Programme. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.