Analysis Of Supreme Court Judgments On Custodial Torture Cases
1. Introduction: Custodial Torture in Nepal
Custodial torture refers to physical or mental abuse inflicted by law enforcement officials on persons in custody, including during arrest, detention, or interrogation. It is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
a. Legal Framework
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 22(1): Protects against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Article 14: Guarantees the right to personal liberty and fair treatment in custody.
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Sections 163–168 criminalize acts of torture by police and officials.
National Human Rights Commission Act, 2068
Empowers the NHRC to investigate complaints of custodial torture and recommend action.
b. Significance of Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court of Nepal has been instrumental in:
Establishing state accountability for custodial torture.
Interpreting constitutional rights to safeguard detainees.
Setting precedents for compensation, inquiry, and preventive measures.
2. Principles Adopted by the Supreme Court
From various judgments, the following principles are consistently applied:
Absolute Prohibition: Torture under any circumstance is illegal.
State Responsibility: The state is accountable for violations by law enforcement.
Right to Compensation: Victims are entitled to compensation and rehabilitation.
Prompt Investigation: Courts demand immediate inquiry and disciplinary action against perpetrators.
Judicial Oversight: Courts often monitor enforcement of orders to ensure compliance.
3. Landmark Custodial Torture Cases
Here are six significant Supreme Court cases in Nepal with detailed analysis:
Case 1: Dilip Kumar Thapa v. Government of Nepal (NKP 2058, Decision No. 7552)
Facts:
The petitioner alleged that he was physically assaulted during police custody while being interrogated for a theft case.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that custodial torture is a violation of Articles 14 and 22 of the Constitution.
Ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the victim and disciplinary action against the officers.
Significance:
Established that courts can directly order compensation for custodial torture.
Reaffirmed state accountability for police misconduct.
Case 2: Ram Kumar Shrestha v. Nepal Police (NKP 2060, Decision No. 8105)
Facts:
The petitioner was detained for questioning in a fraud case and alleged repeated beatings and mental abuse.
Judgment:
Court ordered an independent investigation by the NHRC.
Directed that perpetrators be prosecuted under relevant sections of the Criminal Code.
Significance:
Strengthened the role of the NHRC in custodial torture cases.
Reinforced that victims’ complaints must be taken seriously and investigated independently.
Case 3: Sita Devi Thapa v. Chief of Police (NKP 2063, Decision No. 8488)
Facts:
The petitioner, arrested in a property dispute, claimed torture including electric shocks and verbal abuse.
Judgment:
Court noted that torture violates both domestic and international obligations, including the UN Convention Against Torture.
Ordered criminal proceedings against the officers and immediate medical examination of the victim.
Significance:
Incorporated international human rights norms into domestic jurisprudence.
Emphasized the victim’s right to medical care and evidence preservation.
Case 4: Hari Prasad Adhikari v. State (NKP 2065, Decision No. 9012)
Facts:
The petitioner was detained for alleged involvement in political protests and claimed severe physical abuse by police.
Judgment:
Court condemned custodial torture as a gross violation of human rights.
Ordered compensation of Rs. 75,000 and disciplinary action against police officers, including suspension.
Directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue strict guidelines for handling detainees.
Significance:
Reinforced preventive measures and policy-level accountability.
Highlighted that proactive steps by authorities are essential to prevent recurrence.
Case 5: Bishnu Maya v. Superintendent of Police, Kathmandu (NKP 2068, Decision No. 9345)
Facts:
The petitioner alleged torture while in custody for alleged smuggling charges, including threats of sexual abuse.
Judgment:
Court ordered NHRC inquiry, criminal prosecution of officials, and payment of Rs. 100,000 compensation.
Emphasized special protection for women in custody.
Significance:
Demonstrated gender-sensitive approach to custodial torture.
Reinforced that courts actively monitor enforcement of remedial orders.
Case 6: Ramesh KC v. Nepal Police (NKP 2071, Decision No. 9708)
Facts:
The petitioner was detained during a criminal investigation and alleged both physical assault and mental torture.
Judgment:
Court stressed that torture evidence must be documented promptly, including medical examination and photographs.
Ordered arrest of responsible officers and rehabilitation for the victim.
Significance:
Emphasized evidentiary standards and documentation in torture cases.
Strengthened procedural safeguards for fair investigation and accountability.
4. Key Observations from the Judgments
Compensation is a common remedy for victims of custodial torture.
Independent investigation by NHRC or judicial committees is emphasized.
Disciplinary and criminal action against officers ensures accountability.
Victim protection and rehabilitation, including medical care, is prioritized.
Courts integrate international human rights norms, strengthening domestic jurisprudence.
Preventive guidelines for law enforcement are often issued to avoid recurrence.
5. Challenges in Enforcement
Delay in prosecution of officials leads to impunity.
Poor documentation of torture cases makes evidence collection difficult.
Lack of awareness among detainees about rights under Article 22.
Resistance from police authorities in implementing Supreme Court directives.
6. Conclusion
Supreme Court judgments in Nepal demonstrate a strong stance against custodial torture, balancing victim compensation, accountability, and preventive measures. They also reflect the integration of constitutional rights and international norms into domestic law. The consistent themes are state responsibility, judicial oversight, victim protection, and enforcement of human rights.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year (BS) | Core Issue | Court Decision / Remedy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dilip Kumar Thapa | 2058 | Physical torture in custody | Rs. 50,000 compensation; disciplinary action |
| Ram Kumar Shrestha | 2060 | Physical & mental abuse | NHRC investigation; prosecution |
| Sita Devi Thapa | 2063 | Torture & electric shocks | Criminal proceedings; medical exam |
| Hari Prasad Adhikari | 2065 | Political detainee torture | Rs. 75,000 compensation; guidelines issued |
| Bishnu Maya | 2068 | Gender-based torture | Rs. 100,000 compensation; NHRC inquiry |
| Ramesh KC | 2071 | Physical & mental torture | Arrest of officers; victim rehabilitation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments