Criminal Law Treatment Of Sedition During Political Unrest In Nepal
1. Legal Framework for Sedition in Nepal
Sedition in Nepal is primarily governed under the Crime Against State and Punishment Act, 2046 (1989), and provisions of the Criminal Code, 2074 (2017). Key points:
Sedition covers any act intended to overthrow the government, destabilize constitutional structures, incite violence, or cause public disorder.
Punishable with imprisonment up to 25 years depending on severity.
Courts differentiate between legitimate political dissent and acts intending to use force or incite disorder.
Historical periods of unrest (monarchy, insurgency, or protests) have seen the law applied widely.
2. Case Analyses
Case 1: Chandra Kant Raut (2014)
Facts: Madhesi activist advocating for the autonomy of the Terai/Madhes region and, in some speeches, secession.
Charges: Sedition under Crime Against State Act, claiming he threatened national sovereignty.
Outcome: Charges eventually dropped; courts concluded no evidence of violent intent or conspiracy.
Significance: Advocacy for structural change or regional rights does not automatically amount to sedition unless there is intent to incite violence or overthrow the government.
Case 2: Gagan Kumar Thapa (2005)
Facts: Student leader of Nepal Students’ Union arrested during the royal regime’s emergency for anti-monarchy slogans and protests.
Charges: Sedition under emergency powers and Offences Against the State.
Outcome: Detention challenged; Supreme Court declared some arrests illegal.
Significance: Illustrates misuse of sedition laws against student activists during emergency or political upheaval.
Case 3: Kantipur Media Publication Case (~2001)
Facts: Newspaper published an article urging the army to rise against the King.
Charges: Sedition and treason.
Outcome: Case was withdrawn after a change in government; no conviction.
Significance: Shows how sedition laws were historically used to suppress press freedom and critical reporting.
Case 4: Durga Prasai (2025)
Facts: Pro-monarchy activist leading a violent protest demanding the return of monarchy.
Charges: Sedition, incitement, and organised crime-related offences.
Outcome: Arrested and remanded; sedition charges pending trial.
Significance: Modern use of sedition in the context of violent political protests. Highlights that sedition is invoked primarily when protests involve actual or potential violence.
Case 5: Netra Bikram Chand (2018)
Facts: Leader of a Maoist splinter group, accused of planning armed attacks with cadres in a remote district.
Charges: Sedition and conspiracy to commit violence against the state.
Outcome: Arrested; sedition case filed; proceedings continue.
Significance: Sedition is applied clearly against armed or violent non-state actors, not just political speech.
Case 6: Student Protests during the 2005 Royal Coup
Facts: Multiple student activists arrested for protesting against King Gyanendra’s coup.
Charges: Sedition under emergency law.
Outcome: Several arrests declared illegal by courts; detainees released.
Significance: Reinforces that sedition law can be misapplied in politically charged periods, but courts may check abuse.
Case 7: Media and Public Speech during Maoist Insurgency (2002-2006)
Facts: Journalists and community leaders reported on Maoist activities or criticized government responses.
Charges: Sedition and incitement to disorder.
Outcome: Some faced temporary detention; cases often dropped for lack of evidence of violent intent.
Significance: Demonstrates tension between freedom of expression and state security during insurgency.
3. Key Judicial Principles
Intent and Action: Mere criticism or advocacy is not sedition unless intended to overthrow the government or incite violence.
Evidence of Force: Courts look for proof of force, conspiracy, or incitement to violence.
Political Context: Sedition is often applied during political unrest, emergencies, or insurgencies.
Rights Protection: Judicial oversight is critical to prevent misuse; arbitrary arrests have been overturned in multiple cases.
Modern Enforcement: Even today, sedition charges are invoked when political protests involve actual or potential violence, especially against the constitutional order.
4. Observations
Sedition in Nepal has historically been used against students, media, political activists, and armed groups.
Courts consistently distinguish between legitimate dissent and acts with criminal intent or violent potential.
Misuse of sedition laws during emergencies or political crises has been a recurring concern.
The law remains relevant in contemporary political unrest but must be applied cautiously to avoid curbing freedoms unjustly.
RELATED Blog
comments