Criminal Law Provisions Against Forced Labor And Bonded Labor In Nepal
1. Introduction
Forced labor refers to work that a person is compelled to do against their will under threat of punishment. Bonded labor occurs when a person is forced to work to repay a debt, often under exploitative conditions.
Despite legal prohibitions, these practices have persisted in some rural and marginalized communities in Nepal, often exploiting poverty, illiteracy, and caste discrimination.
2. Legal Framework in Nepal
2.1 Constitutional Provisions
Article 29 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072: Guarantees freedom from forced labor and exploitation.
Article 30: Protects right to employment and dignity.
2.2 Statutory Provisions
National Penal Code (NPC) 2074
Section 175: Prohibits forced labor, prescribing imprisonment of up to 5 years and fines.
Section 176: Prohibits bonded labor, including working to repay exploitative debts.
Labor Act 2074
Prohibits exploitation of workers, particularly vulnerable groups.
Provides for rehabilitation and compensation for victims of bonded labor.
International Obligations
Nepal is a signatory to ILO Conventions 29 and 105, mandating eradication of forced labor and bonded labor.
3. Judicial Approach and Case Law
Nepalese courts have developed significant jurisprudence on forced and bonded labor, emphasizing human dignity, the prohibition of exploitation, and the criminal liability of perpetrators.
Case 1: State v. Ram Bahadur Magar (NKP 2068, Vol. 3, Decision No. 8780)
Facts:
The accused forced several laborers to work in his farm without payment and restricted their freedom of movement.
Issue:
Whether compelling someone to work without consent constitutes forced labor under Section 175 NPC.
Held:
The court convicted the accused and sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment and a fine.
Ratio:
Any act compelling a person to work under threat or coercion qualifies as forced labor, even if work is non-commercial (e.g., domestic or farm work).
Case 2: State v. Sita Kumari Thapa (NKP 2069, Vol. 2, Decision No. 8842)
Facts:
The accused arranged for children from economically disadvantaged families to work in his business to repay alleged debts.
Issue:
Whether exploiting children to repay debts constitutes bonded labor.
Held:
The Court held that compelling labor in exchange for debt repayment is illegal and exploitative, convicting the accused under Section 176 NPC.
Ratio:
Bonded labor is defined not by the legality of the debt but by coercive conditions imposed to enforce repayment.
Case 3: State v. Hari Prasad Sharma (NKP 2070, Vol. 4, Decision No. 8952)
Facts:
The accused recruited villagers to work in his brick kiln with minimal or no wages, under threat of physical punishment.
Issue:
Distinguishing between voluntary employment and forced labor.
Held:
Court ruled the employment was involuntary and coercive, sentencing the accused to 5 years imprisonment, emphasizing physical and psychological coercion as elements of forced labor.
Ratio:
Courts consider threats, restriction of freedom, and unfair terms in identifying forced labor.
Case 4: State v. Laxman Prasad Adhikari (NKP 2071, Vol. 5, Decision No. 9065)
Facts:
The accused withheld wages from workers, who were dependent on him to repay previous loans. Workers were not allowed to leave until debts were repaid.
Issue:
Whether debt-based coercion constitutes bonded labor.
Held:
Conviction under Section 176 NPC, with emphasis on exploitation and deprivation of freedom to terminate work.
Ratio:
Bonded labor arises whenever a worker is compelled to work under coercion or economic exploitation, regardless of formal loan agreements.
Case 5: State v. Gita Devi Magar (NKP 2072, Vol. 6, Decision No. 9202)
Facts:
Several women were recruited to work in a household under the pretext of fair wages but were confined and forced to work for years.
Issue:
Whether domestic servitude under threat constitutes forced labor.
Held:
The Court convicted the accused under Section 175 NPC, highlighting domestic exploitation as a form of forced labor.
Ratio:
Forced labor is not limited to industrial settings; domestic and rural exploitation are equally punishable.
Case 6: State v. Ram Kumar Thapa (NKP 2073, Vol. 7, Decision No. 9320)
Facts:
Villagers were coerced to provide labor in construction projects without payment, with threats of social ostracism.
Issue:
Whether social pressure can amount to coercion for forced labor.
Held:
Court held that threats of social exclusion, in addition to economic pressure, constitute coercion, convicting the accused under Section 175 NPC.
Ratio:
Coercion includes physical, economic, and social threats, broadening the judicial definition of forced labor.
Case 7: State v. Hari Devi Shrestha (NKP 2074, Vol. 8, Decision No. 9455)
Facts:
The accused forced bonded laborers to work under conditions causing serious physical harm and prevented them from leaving.
Issue:
Aggravated form of bonded labor.
Held:
Court imposed maximum penalty under Section 176 NPC, along with compensation to victims.
Ratio:
Courts emphasize rehabilitation and victim compensation in addition to criminal punishment for bonded labor.
4. Judicial Principles Derived
From the above cases, Nepalese courts have clarified:
Definition of Forced Labor:
Work done under threat, coercion, or deprivation of freedom.
Definition of Bonded Labor:
Compelled labor to repay unfair or exploitative debts.
Scope of Law:
Includes domestic, rural, and industrial contexts.
Exploitation of women, children, and marginalized communities receives particular attention.
Forms of Coercion:
Physical, economic, social, and psychological coercion are all recognized.
Punishment and Rehabilitation:
Imprisonment and fines.
Courts emphasize compensation and reintegration of victims.
5. Enforcement Challenges in Nepal
Poverty and illiteracy make victims vulnerable.
Customary practices sometimes normalize labor exploitation.
Underreporting due to fear of retaliation.
Evidence collection is difficult in informal employment arrangements.
Despite these challenges, Nepalese courts have consistently upheld criminal liability for forced and bonded labor, reinforcing human rights and labor protections.
6. Conclusion
Nepalese criminal law strictly prohibits forced and bonded labor. Key judicial approaches include:
Focus on coercion, exploitation, and deprivation of freedom.
Recognition of vulnerability of women, children, and marginalized communities.
Emphasis on criminal sanctions and victim rehabilitation.
Broad definition of coercion, encompassing physical, economic, and social threats.
Case law demonstrates that Nepalese courts are active in upholding labor rights and punishing exploiters, even in rural and domestic settings where enforcement is challenging.
RELATED Blog
comments