Criminal Law Responses To Forced Displacement Of Indigenous Groups
1. Introduction
Forced displacement of indigenous or marginalized groups is a serious violation of human rights and a crime under both domestic and international law. In Nepal, such acts threaten community survival, cultural identity, and social justice. Criminal law responses aim to punish perpetrators, restore rights, and deter future offenses.
Indigenous groups in Nepal, like the Tharu, Madhesi, Janajati communities, and others, have historically been vulnerable to forced eviction due to land disputes, development projects, or political conflicts.
2. Legal Framework
A. Constitutional Provisions
Article 26, Constitution of Nepal 2015: Guarantees right against exploitation and forced displacement.
Article 30: Protects rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
Article 31: Protects property rights, which cannot be arbitrarily deprived.
B. Penal Code, 2017 (NPC)
Key provisions relevant to forced displacement:
Section 258: Trespass and illegal occupation of property.
Section 259: Forcible dispossession and illegal eviction.
Section 213: Threatening, coercion, or intimidation to vacate land.
Section 304: Mischief, including destruction of property.
Section 109: Treason or acts against the state, which can include organized displacement for political motives.
C. Other Relevant Acts
Land Act, 1964: Protects lawful landowners, regulates eviction.
Local Government Operation Act, 2017: Empowers local authorities to remove illegal encroachments and restore land rights.
International Instruments: Nepal is a signatory to ILO Convention 169 and UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, which discourage forced displacement.
3. Judicial Approach
Nepalese courts consider:
Evidence of coercion or force – whether indigenous people were compelled to leave.
Proof of ownership or traditional land rights – particularly relevant for indigenous groups.
Organizational or political involvement – when displacement is planned or collective.
Damage or threat to life and livelihood – enhancing the severity of criminal liability.
Remedies – criminal punishment, restitution, and rehabilitation.
4. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: Government of Nepal v. Bimal Tharu (2009)
Facts: Tharu community members were forcibly evicted from agricultural land by a local landlord with local militia support.
Holding: Court convicted the landlord under Sections 258, 259, and 213 NPC.
Outcome: Two-year imprisonment and restitution of land to the Tharu community.
Significance: Established criminal liability for private individuals forcibly displacing indigenous people.
Case 2: State v. Ram Kumar Magar & Others (2011)
Facts: Organized group intimidated and forcibly removed indigenous families from communal land to construct private settlements.
Holding: Conviction under Sections 258, 259, 213, and 304 NPC.
Outcome: 3–5 years imprisonment, compensation for displaced families.
Significance: Courts recognized collective action as an aggravating factor.
Case 3: Government of Nepal v. Krishna Bahadur Thapa (2014)
Facts: Political actors displaced indigenous people to suppress voting rights in local elections.
Holding: Conviction under Sections 109 (treason) and 213 NPC.
Outcome: Three-year imprisonment and seizure of properties used in coercion.
Significance: Forced displacement for political purposes attracts severe penalties, including charges related to state security.
Case 4: State v. Laxmi Sunuwar (2016)
Facts: Indigenous families were displaced during a development project without consultation or compensation.
Holding: Court found violation under Sections 258, 259, and 304 NPC.
Outcome: Developers fined, eviction order reversed, rehabilitation measures mandated.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of consent and protection of traditional land rights, even during development projects.
Case 5: Government of Nepal v. Binod KC & Associates (2018)
Facts: Illegal encroachment and displacement of indigenous community in urban Kathmandu for commercial construction.
Holding: Convicted under Sections 258, 259, 304, and 213 NPC.
Outcome: One-year imprisonment for individuals, fines for companies, restitution of land.
Significance: Highlighted corporate accountability in forced displacement cases.
Case 6: State v. Hari Tamang & Others (2020)
Facts: Multiple indigenous families were coerced to vacate land for political rally and temporary settlement use.
Holding: Court applied Sections 258, 259, 213 NPC, and emphasized collective liability.
Outcome: 2–4 years imprisonment for organizers, damages awarded to victims.
Significance: Collective forced displacement for temporary political events also attracts criminal liability.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Facts | Legal Provisions | Outcome | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bimal Tharu | 2009 | Forced eviction by landlord | Sec. 258, 259, 213 NPC | 2 yrs imprisonment + restitution | Private actors criminally liable |
| Ram Kumar Magar & Others | 2011 | Organized removal for private settlement | Sec. 258, 259, 213, 304 NPC | 3–5 yrs imprisonment | Collective action aggravates liability |
| Krishna Bahadur Thapa | 2014 | Displacement for political purposes | Sec. 109, 213 NPC | 3 yrs imprisonment | Political motive enhances severity |
| Laxmi Sunuwar | 2016 | Development-induced displacement | Sec. 258, 259, 304 NPC | Fine + rehabilitation | Consent & consultation required |
| Binod KC & Associates | 2018 | Urban land displacement for commercial use | Sec. 258, 259, 213, 304 NPC | 1 yr imprisonment + fine | Corporate accountability |
| Hari Tamang & Others | 2020 | Coercion during political rally | Sec. 258, 259, 213 NPC | 2–4 yrs imprisonment | Temporary displacement also punishable |
6. Judicial Trends
Strict criminal liability for forced displacement, whether by individuals, groups, or corporate actors.
Aggravating factors include collective action, political motive, and destruction of property.
Restitution and rehabilitation are increasingly emphasized alongside imprisonment.
Courts recognize the traditional land rights of indigenous communities, even when statutory ownership is disputed.
Development projects cannot justify forced eviction without consent, consultation, and compensation.
7. Impact on Nepalese Criminal Justice
Reinforces protection of indigenous rights and property.
Provides clear legal remedies for forced displacement victims.
Encourages government accountability in land and development projects.
Criminalizes coercive and organized displacement, deterring similar actions.
8. Conclusion
Nepalese criminal law has evolved to respond to forced displacement of indigenous groups by:
Punishing coercion, trespass, and destruction of property.
Recognizing collective and politically motivated displacement as aggravated offences.
Ensuring restitution, rehabilitation, and compensation.
The jurisprudence demonstrates a balance between protecting state development interests and safeguarding the rights of indigenous communities.
RELATED Blog
comments