Case Law Analysis On Sexual Harassment Prosecutions In Nepal
1. Introduction: Sexual Harassment under Nepalese Law
Sexual harassment in Nepal is addressed under:
Muluki Criminal Code (2017)
Section 218: Criminalizes sexual harassment including unwanted physical contact, gestures, or advances.
Section 220: Punishes sexual harassment in workplace or public spaces.
Workplace Sexual Harassment (Prohibition) Act, 2015
Protects employees from sexual harassment.
Requires employers to establish complaints committees.
Other Legal Provisions
Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Act, 2009: Includes sexual harassment within domestic settings.
Civil and administrative remedies for harassment in public or institutional contexts.
Key Principles:
Sexual harassment includes verbal, physical, visual, or written conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome.
Liability arises even without physical assault if conduct creates hostile or intimidating environment.
Consent and intent of the harasser are crucial elements in prosecution.
2. Evidentiary Standards
Victim Testimony: Central to proving harassment.
Witness Testimony: Co-workers, colleagues, or bystanders.
Documentary Evidence: Messages, emails, letters, or recorded communication.
Behavioral Evidence: Repeated patterns of harassment, complaints filed with authorities.
Employer Records: Complaints committees’ investigation reports in workplace cases.
3. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: State vs. Ram Bahadur KC (Kathmandu, 2010)
Facts: Employee harassed by supervisor through repeated inappropriate gestures and verbal comments.
Evidence: Testimony of victim and witnesses; email records of harassment.
Court Findings: Conduct created hostile work environment; intentional and repeated.
Outcome: Convicted; 2 years imprisonment + fine.
Principle: Sexual harassment in workplace is punishable even without physical assault.
Case 2: State vs. Sita Magar (Pokhara, 2012)
Facts: Teacher harassed a female student with suggestive remarks and advances.
Evidence: Student’s testimony, teacher-student communication logs.
Court Findings: Abuse of position and repeated conduct satisfied elements of harassment.
Outcome: Convicted under Section 218; 3 years imprisonment.
Principle: Power dynamics amplify severity; harassment of vulnerable persons treated strictly.
Case 3: State vs. Bishnu Thapa (Chitwan, 2015)
Facts: Colleague sent explicit messages and unwanted physical contact to coworker.
Evidence: Mobile messages, testimony of victim and HR committee.
Court Findings: Persistent unwelcome conduct constituted harassment; employer liability noted.
Outcome: Convicted; 1.5 years imprisonment + fine.
Principle: Evidence from electronic communication admissible; repeated non-consensual advances punishable.
Case 4: State vs. Ramesh Adhikari (Biratnagar, 2017)
Facts: Public official verbally harassed women in public office.
Evidence: Witness statements, complaints submitted to authorities.
Court Findings: Public harassment violates Section 220; creates intimidating environment.
Outcome: Convicted; 2 years imprisonment.
Principle: Harassment in public or official setting is punishable even if physical contact absent.
Case 5: State vs. Deepa Sharma (Lalitpur, 2019)
Facts: Workplace harassment through repeated inappropriate jokes and touching by manager.
Evidence: Testimony, HR complaint records, video footage of incidents.
Court Findings: Repeated conduct and abuse of authority established guilt.
Outcome: Convicted; 3 years imprisonment; mandated employer action.
Principle: Workplace harassment includes verbal, non-physical, and intimidating conduct.
Case 6: State vs. Manoj KC (Dang, 2021)
Facts: Domestic harassment through repeated sexual advances and threats toward spouse.
Evidence: Victim testimony, counseling records, neighbors’ statements.
Court Findings: Domestic sexual harassment constitutes crime under criminal code and domestic violence provisions.
Outcome: Convicted; 3 years imprisonment + restraining order.
Principle: Sexual harassment in domestic setting punishable; criminal law complements civil remedies.
4. Observations
Courts in Nepal consistently recognize sexual harassment as a criminal offense, both in workplace and public/domestic settings.
Evidence must demonstrate unwelcome and repeated conduct; consent is central.
Harassment through verbal, electronic, or physical means is prosecutable.
Power imbalance, repeated conduct, and abuse of authority aggravate penalties.
Victim protection and rehabilitation are increasingly emphasized alongside punishment.
RELATED Blog
comments